Topic
Love The Tyee? We need your support. Become a Tyee Builder for as little as $5/month.
Most BC transit authorities in the dark about the real costs of collecting fares.
[Editor's note: This is the fourth in a five-part series funded by you, the readers who donated to a Tyee Fellowship for Solutions-oriented Reporting. To find out more about Tyee Fellowships, click here. To learn more about the series' author, Dave Olsen, go here. Or listen to the audio interview with Olsen by Katherine Gretsinger.]
Of all the reasons to quit charging people to take the bus, one of the most important ones has to do with how inefficient and expensive it is to shake loonies loose from riders.
Simply put, collecting bus fares costs a lot of money. There can be no doubt about this, since it takes both machines and people to sell, make and distribute tickets and collect, count and deposit cash.
Granted, fares add up to a major chunk of change for transit operators -- TransLink for instance gets about one-third of its annual budget charging passengers, with the remaining two thirds coming from property taxes and fuel surcharges. (More on how we could replace this type of inefficient fare collection with larger, more consistent funding streams tomorrow.)
Regardless, just how much money it costs to collect and enforce fares is a matter of great debate, and surprisingly little fact.
No fare estimate
I tried to get the hard numbers in British Columbia by repeatedly contacting the eight largest transit systems in B.C., as well as the branch of B.C. Transit that supports the smaller transit systems. TransLink, with a transit-dedicated operating budget of $500 million in 2005, told me it spends an estimated $2.4 million each year on producing what are called "fare media" -- things like month and day passes, transfers, vending machine tickets and any of the range of other specialized transit products available to customers (U-Passes, FareCards, FareSavers, community passes and the like).
But that number leaves many other costs associated with fare collection completely out of the picture, including the expensive machines used; the collecting and counting of money; commissions to third-party vendors; lost productivity for bus trips due to having to explain prices and accept payment from riders; the staff time involved in figuring out when and how to raise fares; and so on.
And that's not even considering the costs of enforcement: TransLink has been bombarding riders with advertisements about fare-paid zones on buses and how they consider it illegal to give or sell valid transfers, as well as creating Canada's first transit police force two years ago, with an annual budget of over $12 million.
Funny numbers
David Hendry insists riders in Greater Vancouver have been getting a raw deal ever since TransLink's inception back in 1999.
An organizer with Vancouver's Bus Riders Union, Hendry says overcrowded buses, four consecutive fare increases and a spike in the number of buses so full they can't stop to take on passengers have all rankled mass transit advocates in the Lower Mainland. He also says TransLink has yet to live up to the original promises it made when it took over the helm for the region.
"Basically what they had said was that they would have 1,600 buses on the road by 2005," says Hendry, who points out that not a single new bus was added to the system between 2000 and 2006. Until the fall of last year, when 100 new buses were added, the number of trolley and articulated buses was the same as in 2001, which was 1,190. During that time, ridership soared from 129 to 165 million trips.
To placate riders, Hendry says TransLink has been playing a game of sleight of hand when announcing new additions to their fleet. Instead of treating big and little buses like apples and oranges, TransLink has been replacing "conventional" buses (meaning trolleys and the accordion-like articulated buses) with smaller vehicles for service to the outlying suburbs. The latter are known as community shuttles.
"The shuttle buses are a lot less expensive," says Hendry. "They carry probably about half the people, or even less."
Although some argue shuttles make good sense in less densely populated areas, they certainly don't help rising pressures along the main arteries in the city. Hendry cites one survey that counted 19,000 pass-ups -- or people who watched fully loaded buses zip by without stopping -- in 2006. He figures that number is way less than the actual number of people who had to wait for the next bus due to overcrowding.
With four consecutive fare increases, Hendry says riders are getting the short end of the stick from what is supposed to be a public service.
"We paid our share," he says, "They're the ones who should be paying us. They haven't actually followed through on their promises."
Hendry and other Union volunteers do weekly ride-along surveys of hundreds of transit passengers. He says many are getting fed up.
"They don't have to read reports or anything, they know from their pocketbooks and from riding the bus all the time that it's getting more overcrowded, there are more pass-ups and yet they're being asked for more money."
-- Bryan Zandberg
In a similar fashion, Barry Miller, a spokesperson for B.C. Transit in Victoria, said that his organization estimates their fare collection costs at less than two per cent of the revenue collected. That estimate did not include the cost of prepaid media or the capital cost of the fare boxes, or even the costs of debating and deciding fare changes.
Steve New, senior vice president for the Municipal Systems Program of B.C. Transit, gave another low estimate.
His organization provides support to the 24 smaller systems around the province, and in an interview with The Tyee, New stated that the annual cost of fare collection is "not material" in the discussion on free fares in the transit systems under his watch, like the ones in Nanaimo and Kamloops.
When pressed, he offered the following guess: "Fare collection costs are not publicly reported. I'd estimate these costs at less than two per cent of the revenue collected."
None of the other transit system operators I e-mailed could even provide an estimate of any of their fare collection costs. Can you imagine a business, a co-op, or any type of organization choosing a method of collecting money for its services without knowing what it costs to do so?
The BC lowball
Looking south shows there's reason to question the low figures transit bigwigs put forward in B.C.
King County's Metro Transit System, which includes the city of Seattle and an estimated population of just under two million, conducted a comprehensive assessment of the cost of collecting fares in 1999.
Chuck Sawyer, supervisor of Metro's Research and Information Section, said when it comes to tallying up just how much it costs to charge riders, their numbers are much higher -- about $6 million, or 10 per cent of the revenue collected that year. (That's the equivalent of 14 new buses.)
While that figure is still an estimate, it better reflects the real costs involved, taking into account expenditures for fare media production, distribution, sales and promotion; cash collection and counting; accounting; and employee discount passes, not to mention the cost of staff time associated with fare analysis and policy.
They estimate that in 2006, the costs of fare collection are still 10 per cent of the revenue collected, now about $8 million or 18 new buses per year.
Big Apple bite
As noted earlier, TransLink estimates its costs of fare media production to be $2.4 million each year (about six new buses).
In an interview with The Tyee, Glen Leicester, TransLink's vice president of planning, said the other costs identified by King County above were not included because it's not possible to directly link the staff and overhead costs associated with the various processes.
A major analysis of U.S. public transit systems found that for larger systems, fare collection costs can be as high as 22 per cent of the revenue collected.
Another study showed that New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority spends roughly $200 million a year just to collect money from transit riders.
Listen to audio: Kathryn Gretsinger interviews Dave Olsen about the reasons for making transit free.
Them's the brakes
If you think newer, more efficient technology is the cure, bear in mind that TransLink's effort to stock each of its buses with new electronic fare-boxes cost $21,500 apiece, to the tune of $27 million to outfit the entire fleet. Just this one-time cost alone added up to 50 per cent of the cash collected by these fare boxes in 2006 -- the equivalent of 58 new buses. Every replacement bus since 2001 has had to have a fare box installed as well.
With those expensive new boxes came new headaches too. Take the U-Pass fiasco, for example.
For students at the University of British Columbia and at Simon Fraser, the annual discounted student passes include a mandatory fee tacked on to tuition. But during that program's first year, 13,000 faulty and damaged U-Passes were delivered to students, highlighting the kinds of kinks that often accompany adopting new technology.
When their new machines couldn't read the cards, some operators attempted to confiscate passes, which registered as invalid. Others prevented students from boarding, even though it was a fare-box error.
A student on the SkyTrain was fined for using a faded pass despite the fact that TransLink was well aware that the printing on some U-Pass passes wears within a few months of use, to the point that the student's name and photograph are no longer legible.
Although counterfeit U-Passes do exist, it still strikes as odd that in an age of global warming, riders are presumed guilty and required to prove themselves innocent for trying to take the bus. How would you choose to travel after being prevented from making your class, meeting, or work shift on time or at all?
Fare box 2.0
Despite the costs of the current fare boxes, Leicester said TransLink is already planning to replace them with so-called smart card technology, although he didn't know how much this would cost.
Metro Transit in Seattle has been converting to smart card technology since 2003 and expects to finally launch its new collection system in 2008. Sawyer said staff time for this project has been significant.
In Toronto, the city's Transit Commission is also considering smart cards, although expected costs of that switch -- $260 million for card readers, vending machines and retrofits and $11 million a year after that -- have some transit authorities there saying the money could be better used in improving service.
'Not enough buses'
Meanwhile, TransLink continues to promise to add more full-size buses to their system in Greater Vancouver. Similar promises were made the previous three times TransLink raised fares since June of 2000. But recent correspondence from TransLink shows that at the end of 2006, it had 1,190 full-size and articulated (extended) buses -- also known as conventional buses -- the same number it had in 2001, when the first promise of more buses was made.
In fact, TransLink doesn't even seem to know what it is promising. The company ran an ad in the May 24, 2007, edition of the Georgia Strait announcing 203 new buses in 2008. The finer print, however, stated 94 were new and 109 would be replacements. Another press release said there will only be 90 new buses. Whatever the number, if it actually happens this time, it will be the largest bus expansion in 31 years.
Transit advocates say it's high time. According to one news report, one-third of bus routes on the Lower Mainland were identified as overcrowded in 2005. Ridership has grown from 129 million in 2000 to a projected 164 million in 2006.
Jim Houlihan, a spokesman for the union representing bus drivers, has stated there just aren't enough buses on the road, a source of stress for drivers because bus service has not kept up with increased ridership.
"We are 300 to 400 buses short, ridership is through the roof and [there are] zero spares in our system, and [there are] not enough buses on the way," he told the CBC.
Invisible turnstiles
In 1996, the Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) wanted to figure out how to stop transit riders from cheating. Its Central Light Rail Line was "barrier free" and operated in a way similar to the SkyTrain in Vancouver. MTA wanted to know whether it should start using barriers in order to force people to pay their fares.
The study found that any type of barrier system would create significant new costs and numerous operational difficulties. More people would pay, yes, but the cost of making them pay would be higher than the revenue from extra fares collected.
Their analysis showed that the least expensive alternative would cost the MTA $18.54 for each potential fare dollar recovered over a 10-year period. In other words, if $1 million is currently lost to fare evasion, it would cost at least $18.5 million to collect that money.
Pays not to pay
All of which brings us back to the logic of fare-free transit.
Whidbey Island's transit planners came to a similar conclusion when they did their own studies two decades ago.
During the year prior to the commencement of Island Transit's service in 1987, they did an extensive cost-benefit analysis of collecting fares and found that either no significant revenue would be generated for Island Transit, or that the costs of collecting fares would exceed the revenue generated.
Skagit Transit in Washington State recently calculated that it takes in $121,300 from fares but spends $133,385 to collect them. The irony here is that the system started out fare-free and changed to a user-pay system because taxpayers did not want people to have a "free ride." Now it costs taxpayers more than when it was fare-free.
In 1994, a report by the Washington State Department of Transportation came to the following conclusion:
"The cost of adopting a fare-free policy is minimal. Half of the transit systems in Washington return less than a 10 per cent fare box recovery rate. Our analysis demonstrates that once the costs of collecting fares are deducted (usually from 2 per cent to 7 per cent of operating costs) little, if any, net revenue is generated. We conclude that fare-free policy does make a difference and that smaller communities especially are better served by a fare-free transit policy."
All of the 24 transit systems supported by B.C. Transit's Municipal Systems Program are smaller or of a similar size to Island Transit's fare-free system's service population, and so it stands to reason they too could benefit from doing away with fares.
A TransLink tally
Back in 2001, when TransLink removed all of the old fare-boxes from our buses, if instead of installing the current ones, they simply converted our system to a fare-free system, we would have saved (em>at minimum $240 million (and counting). How? Let's add it up:
At roughly half a million dollars per new bus (regular diesel buses cost $465,000), TransLink could now be celebrating the fulfilment of their original promise of a fleet of 1,600 buses, made back in 2000.
(None of this, by the way, includes the huge costs involved in converting to smart card technology, as is being considered in Toronto. Making the switch, which many experts say is an inevitable move to improve efficiency, could easily add hundreds of millions more to the total spent gathering change from riders.)
Instead, TransLink recently forced a fourth fare increase upon us for a service that is overcrowded and literally breaking down.
But what about the money that wouldn't have been collected if TransLink had had the foresight and fortitude to go 'fare-fare' like the dozens of Hasselt and Island Transit inspired systems have done around the world? That is a question best answered tomorrow, in the final part of this five-part series.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
28
Login or register to post comments
Ed Seedhouse
5 years ago
Of course everyone has known
Of course everyone has known for thirty years that fares don't make sense in the transit context, but like the absurd and wasteful "war on drugs" it will not change as long as we continue to elect right wing ideologues time and time again.
A left wing interregnum will not change it as long as it lives in fear that it will lose office in the next election if it actually dares to do something "left wing".
So I am afraid I won't hold my breath waiting for this entirely sensible idea to actually be implemented. Maybe when it becomes all too appallingly clear that the disaster is immanent someone will do something, but by then it may be too late to matter.
jwstewart
5 years ago
Reporting or Advocacy ?
This is the fourth of 5 articles advocating no fares. No articles opposing the idea. Is this balanced ?
Frankly, why charge fares when you can extract the revenue from people who don't use the service via unrelated taxation?
avandoc
5 years ago
Advocacy with compelling facts
Yes, some will continue to complain about their taxes being used to support others' transportation costs. They don't seem to complain about taxes for roads and bridges. Transit is just an extension of that public infrastructure--a necessity for civilized urban existence. Do people like Stewart really want all those bus riders to begin commuting in cars? I doubt that car commuters would enjoy driving nearly as much under that circumstance.
Transit is essential, just like roads and bridges, and given the benefits we all derive from having fewer single-occupancy cars on the road, it should be barrier-free.
Grumpy
5 years ago
A better way?
Why not try the real European solution (sorry guys Hasselt isn't) for fare collection. Give every household in TransLink's sphere of operation a universal buss pass, do away with cash fares, and sell pre-paid tickets through convenience stores. The cost of fare collection is mainly the cost of dealing with cash fares.
Now something else to think about. Buying more buses only drives up the cost of public transport. The main reason cities build with LRT is that one light rail vehicle (tram or streetcar) with one driver is as efficient as six to eight buses, with six to wight drivers.
For every bus or tram operated one must hire up to five people to operate, service and manage them.
Example:
One route requiring 60 buses needs about 300 people (drivers, maintenance people managers, and security people)to operate the route, while one only needs 10 trams (and 50 people) to do the same job.
Factor in the savings over a 25 year period, including the fact that a tram lasts about 3 to 4 times longer than a bus, and there are great savings to be made, more than enough to justify operating LRT.
The above is modern public transport philosophy, practiced in just about every major city in Europe. Vancouver is a 1950's transit town, toying with 1950's transit solutions. Actually free fares is a 1930's transit idea that its time has come and gone!
Grumpy
5 years ago
From a foreign correspondent
Good luck to Hasselt's fare-free system. I hope it prospers, but back in the 1930s similar schemes were initially successful, but folded after a few years (why?). Two examples, both including trams, were Southend-on-Sea and Leningrad (as it then was). Free use bicycles have also proved short lived in such places as Amsterdam, theft being a big cause. Of course if they were free everywhere there would be little temptation.
rac
5 years ago
More Funding Solution to Transit Woes
I'm not convinced.
The sidebar on "TransLink's 'Broken Promises" was, however, well done.
Regarding the "money saved" by not collecting fares, the $240 million figure looks very high. Although, in absence of figures from TransLink, who knows what it is. Regardless, what is important is not how much it costs, it is the difference between how much it costs and what the revenue it is. Revenue was $300 million in 2006. Not wanting to look up the figures for the last few years, lets conservatively assume an average of $200 million per year since 2001. So the revenue would be $1.2 billion leaving the net revenue after the cost of collecting almost $1 billion. The $240 million saved would not be available for bus purchases because there would have been a billion dollar shortfall. There would also be operating costs associated with the buses, so that even if TransLink purchased buses with the non-existent $240 million, there would have been no money to operate them.
Even if other sources of revenue could be found to cover the fare revenue, fare revenues provide revenue for expansion beyond what is available from other sources. Fare free may work in some small towns but it does not seem to be a solution for larger cities.
That said, fares do need to be lowered. Road pricing is also needed to fund transit and discourage driving. The provincial and federal governments need to step up and provide much more funding for transit. Ontario is stepping up with $10 billion.
rac
5 years ago
New Bikesharing Programs Successful
Hey Grumpy
Might want to get your bike sharing knowledge up to date. It is stuck back in the 60s.
Recent modern programs in cities such as Lyon have been very successful in both use of the bikes and in encouraging more cycling.
These programs rely on bikes with hi-tech security features built in.
Paris has just started such a program with 10,000 bikes.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=926662007
Bobby Peru
5 years ago
Dream the Impossible Dream
Sad how the lefties here complain about the right wing ideology of a govt that most people want in office. And sad how the so called protectors of the working man make it so expensive for average people to drive. The fact is that BC's geography means driving is the most convenient way to get around.
Clearly, this Tyee series is sheer advocacy and isn't balanced journalism. When are we going to see a feature advocating more highway development? Or is the govt's decision and studies a complete scam? Will we descend down the lefties' favourite road of blaming big business, the man, evil govt and the usual litany of evil they wheel out for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan? Or blaming the rich- could someone tell me who you define as the rich that you love to vilify?
The idea that alot of BC'ers will switch to bikes or buses is ludicrous. And putting another 2000 buses on the road? The roads are full enough and we need more roads not less to deal with our economic activity. BC's weather is terribly hot or wet and there's no way alot of people are going to leave the comfort of their car unless public transport goes right to their house.
I think Kevin Falcon said it best in an interview when he said he robustly takes on anyone who is against his plans. Simply put none of these ideas are workable in BC in a reasonable period of time. And alot of them hope that consumers will yearn for some commune/workers' paradise where everyone has the same consumer habits.
And I am not right way. I am a liberterian, an individualist who wants the BC left to stop telling everyone how to lead their lives right down to opposing neighbourhood festivals or telling me to stop driving.
Chris H
5 years ago
What if?
What if our transit system became free to ride overnight? Would you be able to get on a bus? Remember why Translink refused to extend the bus pass deal they have with SFU and UBC to the colleges? They don't have the capacity! Many routes run at capacity already, and I gave up taking the bus four years ago after getting really crappy service. How many more people would take the bus if it was free? Would service get even worse than it already is? Yes! It seems to me that free busses are a "pie in the sky" idea in Vancouver. Perhaps a more realistic version would be to make the skytrain free.
G West
5 years ago
Bobby Peru
Your comment is based upon a false premise.
The majority of British Columbians did NOT vote for this bunch. Perhaps you didn't know that?
Without even bringing into the argument the fact that a lot of eligible voters didn't cast ballots and a lot of people who should have been eligible weren't, the results of the 2005 Provincial election don't support your premise "...that most people want..." this government in office.
I'll save you the trouble of confirming the actual figures (considering only the top three finishers in that election) and post them for you:
BC Liberal - 807,164 votes; BCNDP - 731,761 votes; Green Party of BC - 161, 858 votes.
I'll leave the percentage calculations to you - think you can handle it?
One reason things are so bad in this province is because the Campbell Liberals constantly forget that their duty once in power is to provide good government for all the citizens of this province. They seem to think the only things that matters are their friends.
Frank
5 years ago
G
Don't worry GWest, Bobby has it all figured out. He's an advocate for either bulldozing all the houses so that we can build more roads or that gov't start creating new land for his roads out of thin air.
Meanwhile, in the real world, when someone is able to explain to me why raising fares will increase ridership I'll become a believer but until then the radical idea that we could increase ridership if the price was lowered seems pretty interesting.
Grumpy
5 years ago
RAC, guess what
Guess what, both Lyon and Paris are investing in on-street/at-grade LRT, bicycles are a sidebar. You want to get serious about transit, plan for light rail.
Here is the real problem folks, despite a very large bus system and over $5 billion (will be closer to $billion upon the completion of RAV) on metro (SkyTrain), the percentage of population using transit, 11%-12%, has stayed the same for a decade and a half. Ridership only increases when population increases. There is no discernible modal shift from car to transit. More metro, free fares will not change this as the vast majority of the population do not and will not take public transit.
Forget the gimmicks and start consulting with the public and build (or at least try to) what they want. This means honest discussions and more of a little 'loss of face' by transit bureaucrats and politicians.
Frank
5 years ago
Grumpy
Ridership hasn't increased but that could be more due to the fact that fares have continued to go up. Micro-economists tend to believe that price affects demand and that strangely, raising a price discourages use, except in Vancouver apparently.
Free fares will cost us only a fraction of what it would cost us to cover the Lower Mainland in more roads and bridges so let's give it a shot for a year and see what happens.
If it doesn't increase ridership I'll promise to join Bobby and demand we bulldoze all the houses in Burnaby and New Westminster so that we can have more roads on the way to Vancouver.
Grumpy
5 years ago
A complicated subject
Rising fares discourage ridership but, here is the rub, it discourages rides by those already taking transit. There is no real proof that fares attracts the motorist from the car.
So TransLink's fare increases are really hurting those who already take transit, the poor, the elderly, and students.
The U-Pass was/is a gimmick to increase TransLink's ridership numbers. The U-Pass was conceived to put 'bums on empty seats' on buses servicing universities and colleges. TransLink had no empty seats on their buses but cynically added all those U-Passes into their daily ridership calculations!
Grumpy
5 years ago
Why we have high fares
The reason our fares are so high is that we have a very expensive metro system to pay for. SkyTrain is already subsidized by over $200 million annually, but that is not enough.
Our transit system is full of unpleasant surprises.
I predict that when RAV opens a 3-Zone fare will be $6 and that RAV's ridership will be around 50,000 a day.
Then the whole house of cards will collapse.
G West
5 years ago
Fares and usage
I think it's fair to say that eliminating fares alone won't get the bums out of the cars...which is why the folks driving the cars have to start paying back the $5 G/year subsidy they've been getting.
Bring in a program like London's; increase the price of gas to $3/ltr and (on this I completely agree with you Grumpy) borrow some money to built LRT and run streetcars throughout the district and the change will happen overnight. Hang some nice flower baskets on the Skytrain tracks and Bob's your uncle.
My view.
JP
5 years ago
Is this series trully about no fares?
Again another article in this series dabbles in the benefits of no fare transit systems, then goes off to other issues.
Largely the complaints have been concerning the lack of funding, the lack of resources, transit prohibitive planing, and a constrained transit board. All of these would have made an excellent series. Yet it seems they have been thrown in to this series to increase the word count.
And how about using the transit police to start issuing bus lane violations. If translink could keep the fine revenue, it could probably pay for free fares on the B-Line buses.
Frank
5 years ago
Quote:Hang some nice flower
While I agree that more than reduced fares are needed to move all the bums out of their car seats I don't think we should paper over that idea too quickly.
It won't get everyone out of their cars but it will move a percentage I'm sure. I think its worth trying to find out what that percentage is.
For the sake of argument let's say 10% of the people driving a car now switch to free transit. That would be huge in my opinion and would save us a fortune on the Campbell-highway-system-of-the-near-future.
Plus, as Grumpy points out, its ludicrous to penalize the less well off people that rely on transit while giving mass subsidies to those of us that drive.
Free fares is a win-win in my opinion until actual experience says otherwise. But I agree it can't be the only thing we do.
ov
5 years ago
Grumpy
There was a letter in the latest Republic of East Vancouver that was advocating for LRT. Used the phrase vast majority a couple of times, such as: "In Vancouver, the vast majority of the population do not want to take the bus and transfer to a train to complete their trip, resulting in the public viewing TransLink as a very poor product, and so they take the car instead." It was written by Malcolm Johnston, Light Rail Committee, Delta, BC. Is that you grumpy?
Personally I like the bus, and I find the system here in Vancouver runs much more frequently than the buses in Calgary. Calgary had LRT and it worked well but when I was there it was a two lines, one from the North end of town, and the other from the South and wasn't much different then our skytrain with the exception that it was closer to the ground, and had somebody driving it which I felt was more reassuring. Oh yeah, it cost much much less. So I like LRT but provided it is used in conjunction with lots of feeder buses.
I use the main street bus to get my produce from Sunshine Market at one end, and canned goods and bulk from Superstore at the other end. The rest of my groceries I get within walking distance. The rest of my transportation is by bicycle. I don't own a car. Very rarely I'll take a taxi, and we could sure use lots more of those in this city.
The vast majority of people don't like to use a system that is inadequate. Falcon et al is doing its best to make our bus system inadequate to support the notion that people don't want buses they want roads, bridges and humongous concrete pedestals; all things which are the construction industries wet dream. It's a classic neo-liberal strategy of destroying public institutions to rationalize privatization. And, Grumpy, imho, your constant denigrating of the buss system doesn't help.
rac
5 years ago
Why We Really Have High Fares
The reason why fares are so high and we don't have enough transit is the vehicle levy was not approved and the provincial government has not stepped forward with alternatives.
Regarding SkyTrain, almost all the debt is on the province's books so it does not affect TransLink's costs and thus fares at all. Anyway, the cost has already occurred. Moving forward, as I have said before, the province and the feds need to kick in more.
As opposed to buses and most light rail in North America, SkyTrain is at least covering operating costs. It might even be making a little bit of money for TransLink by now.
Ed Seedhouse
5 years ago
Actually I fear ideologues
Actually I fear ideologues of the left about as much as I fear those on the right. I'd prefer a practical, thinking conservative to a captive of any ideology, though I admit that I prefer a practical thinking slightly left wing viewpoint to either.
Ideologues are dangerous and we keep electing them, alas. Mostly it' the right wing variety that gets in in B.C. though so they get to do most of the damage.
The evidence currently seems to suggest that the B.C. N.D.P. is much the least captive to ideologies of either main party, which is why I certainly prefer them over the current "Liberal" non-thinkers that we have in power.
But since most people are non-thinkers themselves I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that they get stampeded by slogans instead of reason.
Nikkal
5 years ago
fares just aren't the issue
it's all fine and dandy to debate the merits of a fare-free transit system, but most of us who work in the city already know we shell out more cash to drive than to take the bus. Making transit free wouldn't change that at all. A few dollars isn't going to influence my decision.
increase capacity, increase comfort, increase convenience, increase speed (i.e. more express commuter busses), and I'd consider switching, even with my disability, at least part of the time (I need my vehicle for my job about 3/4 of the time).
Frank
5 years ago
Fares are one of the issues
The thing is Nikkal, we already have a transportation option that provides that. They're called cars. And they require massive subsidies at all levels and a huge percentage of the usable land not to mention the pollution problem. Which is why we're in the place we're in.
Besides, even if bus fares were raised to $25 a trip and picked me up at my door and took me around town in air-conditioned comfort with free wireless for my laptop they still wouldn't be as convenient as cars.
But there is a percentage out there for whom cost is a factor. And the only way to discover for how many people the price of fares is deterring from using transit is to give free transit a good try over a long period. Long enough for people to give up their cars, a week won't do it, no one is going to cancel their insurance in return for free transit for a week.
And being as you need your car for your job so its going to be insured and available all the time anyway you're simply not part of the target demographic.
Fiat lux
5 years ago
What people should remember
What people should remember is that we don't know the real cost of anything, because costs can not be expressed in monetary, only in resource/energy input figures.
Especially not with today's imaginary monetary figures, where costs and prices are controlled by a self appointed ruling class for its own "wealth creation" program.
Contrary to ideological propaganda,there are no "bottom lines" in economics, all costs start and go into eternity, because we can neither create, or destroy anything, only convert matter into other forms.
What people call "bottom lines" are figures taken from endless columns, without the slightest idea of what they represent.
This is why we have incredible garbage, pollution, climate change, poverty, millions starving to death and dying of poisoned air and waters, etc. problems.
There's no such thing as "monetary efficiency", neither can costs be cut, only transferred on others. In short, our present, as all economic theories before, have been and are fraudulent ideological and religious ideologies that have always ruined civilizations.
When we scratch the surface, and open our minds, we can see that today's market economic capitalism has very much in common with Mao's Cultural Revolution and this similarity is becoming more apparent every day, as the self appointed ruling class is taking more and more control of our lives with their unlimited money creating powers. .
Ed Deak.
socialscientist
5 years ago
fares protect polluters
Public transit fares exist for only one reason: To satisfy the oil/auto/coal lobbyists. Their industries are threatening all life on earth and we are falling for their hoax. http://www.freepublictransit.org
snert
5 years ago
Ed
Anything can be translated into monetary terms. All that does is give some basis for comparison. It turns all fruit into apples so you don't have to compare them with, say, oranges.
RickW
5 years ago
But Don't Think Small..............
Publicly Supported Transit should be applied throughtout and across the nation. As a Canadian citizen, I should be able to trevel from coast to coast to coast, when I want, and where I want, by simply showing up and getting on board. It's time we entered the 20th century in transportation, even while nearly everyone else in the "developed" world are working in the 21st...........
The basic problem with transport (and just about everything else) is that we are a civilization based on energy. Without energy, we die. Simple as that. So cutting back doesn't "cut it". But we are also a civilization which has promoted the concept of "conspicuous consumption". We grow lawns, which began as an example of propsperity, in which we "waste" the productivity of the land, by not growing vegetables. And we use energy in the form of electricty and fossil fuels, in the same way.
So the aim is not to cut back on energy consumption (because if we do, some 5 billion of the 6 or so on planet Earth will die), but to quit using energy as a status symbol of wealth. The infernal combustion engine is, at best, 25% efficient. Why do we still use it? Where is our mass transit cross country transportation system? Why are we using concrete made in the wasteful fashion that it is? Or asphalt for roads?
Wherever did "Canada's Century" go? Sit Wilfred Laurier noted: "...as the 19th century was that of the United States, so I think the 20th century shall be filled by Canada."
What happened?
RickW
5 years ago
PS
http://www.c2p2online.com/documents/Alex_Martin.pdf
All I can get out of the politicians though is: " Canada is too big, and we don't have enough people" Now there is BS......