More Granola Fantasy

Sounds so easy, doesn't it? A dollar a day? But, it isn't because the BC public doesn't want to pay anymore taxes. Plus, it's based on the ludicrous assumption that people will abandon their cars for buses just because they are free. Again, there's no way you could ever design enough convenience into the system to make a difference.

Then there's that increase in the French payoll tax- the tax itself on payroll is crazy and something that holds back employment in France.

Ultimately, if there were free buses on the Lower Mainland, usage would not go up significantly. In fact, the main users would be the poor and homeless who would use it as a mobile home. Of course, this would discourage those who can choose to use a car.

Stop exclusively focussing on the poor and consider the working and middle classes who need their cars.

Congestion Pricing

By far the best method is congestion pricing. By charging for road use during peak periods and by providing much improved transit, those who must us the road can get around much faster. Everyone wins. It has worked extremely well in London and Stockholm. It also reduces GHG emissions by around 20%. The improved transit should be in place before congestion pricing. Even Falcon recently said this is worth looking at some point in spite of previous comments dismissing it. Free transit might be a good way of selling the public on congestion pricing.

The revenue methods mentioned in the article do not have any benefits beyond raising revenue and some are liking even regressive.

Mr. Olsen, you are on the wrong track

Dave Olsen's five articles, could have been condensed into one. Here we have the problem, a complete lack of understanding of modern public transport. Olsen is in good company, just about everyone at TransLink (the TransLink Board is just plain ignorant), the GVRD, and provincial transportation bureaucrats have not a clue about modern public transport. SkyTrain and RAV is a good example of this ignorance.

Our universities do not teach students about public transport, nor do they offer degrees in the discipline. Planners and Engineers have filled the vacuum, yet they offer dated transit solutions, not solutions that work!

Collectively we have ignored the hierarchy of transit; bus-LRT-metro, and have wasted many billions of dollars trying, without success, reinventing the wheel.

The result is a hugely expensive, over crowed transit system that only attracts about 11% of the population. Free transit would cause a transit meltdown ans certainly would not attract much new customers.

In the 21st century, public transport is seen as a product and if the public deem the product to be of poor value, they will not buy. About 89% of the population is not buying the TransLink product. Making it free isn't the solution.

Congestion pricing will not work here...yet

RAC, with congestion pricing, one needs a good public transit product. Vancouver does not. both London and Stockholm have excellent metro's and urban rail systems. Vancouver does not.

In London some stores are being subsidized by the congestion tax for loss of business and deliveries charges have escalated.

It's a tax and we are taxed enough here. Like it or not we have a transit system and it is called the car. any talk of congestion taxes would further drive up the cost of living and create an unpardonable burden on the poor.

As an aside, why do we need a congestion charge? Oh, the Liberals want to increase their $4 billion surplus!

What the traffic will bear

Why is it that the biggest critic of "free transit" doesn't recognize the need to start charging people - who use their cars all the time (for everything) and are actually the real cause of congestion in the first place - the "real" costs of their favourite form of transporation?

Fare's fair after all Bobby.

If you want people to pay more for the terrible bus service I assume you're prepared to pony up a minimum of $6G a year (after tax) for the use of the roads and bridges for each of your cars.

The fact of the matter is, a fair system would never have created the problem the lower mainland is NOW saddled with. Fixing it is everyone's responsibility - and I'm sick of people like you who think they're entitled to a free ride. Where does that extreme sense of entitlement come from?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You might want to check your empathy gene. Someday you might need to ask for a little yourself.

Libertarians are great - but they really belong on an island all by themselves.

funding

What is the cost of NOT having free public transit. See

http://www.freepublictransit.org/index.php?pr=Externalities

for a partial list.

Grumpy - just a thought

Whether we're talking about passes or 'free' transit really isn't the question - in my view.

This is a multi-dimensional problem - exacerbated by the question of global warming, climate change and affordable housing within reasonable commuting distance.

I think the series IS part of the real debate. You're right on the strict question that simply doing away with fares - without addressing private vehicles and the fundamental issue. The Metro/LRT debate is only going to be joined when and if the situation reaches crisis proportions.

We're nearly there and the pressure of a significant portion of public opinion who share the view that the patchwork of transit options we currently have are both inadequate and too costly (from a rider's point of view) is, in my opinion, going to make a valuable contribution to that debate.

By rejecting the idea of changing the pricing format of transit it seems to me that one is danger of playing to the Bobby Peru's of the world who simply don't care!

Take away cash fares

The cost of collecting fares is dealing with 'cash' fares. Let us do away with cash fares and give more annual passes like the European Environmental pass used on so many public transport systems.

I see many pitfalls for a fare-less system, the greatest being the government treating it as a social service and starving it for cash.

A transit expert, born in the Fraser Valley and working in Europe told me over 15 years ago that "You could build a simple LRT system from BCIT to UBC, via Broadway, replacing buses with trams. Such a service would double ridership or more if a line was built to Stanly Park, which revenue generated would pay for the system. Such a route would naturally invite a private operator."

Instead we got the Millennium Line which goes nowhere to nowhere. I actually went to the Glen Clark station around noon a few Sundays ago and was ushered out by a security guard who saw me on camera. I was there for 30 minutes and no one entered the station!

As I said in my previous post, the public have been denied a real debate on transit and are forced to take whatever the political flavour of the month will be.

Vancouver now wants the Millennium Line to extend, via subway under Broadway to Arbutus. Here we have another hugely expensive boondoggle rapid transit project that will not attract new ridership. It will keep Bombardier happy though because if it is SkyTrain, Bombardier will get the vehicle contract as no one else makes SkyTrain ART.

As I am typing this, TransLink is claiming record ridership and a profit on SkyTrain, while at the same time will not divulge how they calculate ridership and also forgetting the provinces $200 million subsidy for the metro! I could run at a profit if i received even $20,000 annually!

Transit in the region is a mixture of BS, political dogma, and an utter ignorance of modern public transport.

With only 11% of the population using transit, I'm not holding my breathe for any change.

Shaking my head

This was a gem: "One way to do this is to collect $20 per month per GVRD resident to cover the entire transit budget"

A head tax? Are you from the Fraser Institute? I would have pay for my wife and two children, making my total nearly $1000 a year. It takes no consideration of income and is quite a regressive taxing scheme.

And, another: "As we have seen, in Hasselt, Belgium, people actually enjoy giving one per cent of their municipal taxes to transit. But only because their transit service is free to use, very frequent, and saves people significant amounts of money overall."

I already pay way more than that on my municipal tax bill! My G.V. Transportation Authority taxes came to $252.49 on my property tax notice (That's over 7% of the total).

The fact of the matter is that if you made transit free, you'd have to increase the existing capacity by quite a bit, adding a lot of costs into the system. The only effective way I've seen to do that is light rail, and since we don't seem to want to talk about that option, free transit service will always be "pie in the sky" thinking in Vancouver.

Sigh, a lot of musing, not much journalism

I have to agree with Grumpy on one point, this should have been one article instead of 5. A lot of points were thrown about but there was no follow up.

The cost of fare collection could have been figured out with a bit of foot work, yet they decided to rely on the figures of one different transit system and then say this is low figure.

The cost of the new transit force is entirely involved in weapons? Exactly how much?

The sea to sky is a 600 million project. Not 2 billion. Get the figures right. A viable rail option in that corridor was studied by the Province at a minimum 2 billion dollar price tag, with limited stop high speed rail.

And that 1$ a day payroll tax sounds insignificant, but look at it this way. The service industry is often staffed by people working 4 hour shifts at minimum wage. It would be a regressive policy that would decrease employment.

Mini fast ferries? LRT?

If a system of shuttles across the straight, or lrt is such a great idea, then make it happen. Form a concern, add up the costs and the benefits and propose these ideas as a P3. BC Ferries is open to to having private operators on its routes. If this is such a great idea then they'll have no trouble accepting it. But the last time we tried making smaller fast ferries we found out it didn't cut it.
The current fleet needs replacing. And if you've lived on the island, you'll know that capacity in the system isn't there. The new ferries are a necessity.
As for LRT down Cambie. Sure why not. It will be as much fun as taking the 98 B-Line. Frequent stops, slow service And an hour later you're at the airport. There are possibilities for LRT (41st, Arbutus, Surrey). But the north-south axis needed metro type transit.
Most of the people who aren't using transit can afford to do so. So why aren't they? Inconvinience. Riding the bus through suburban streets is never fun. Most people have no trouble hoping on the Skytrain, but will pass if they have to take the bus.

A better

A much more accurate impression of Millennium line usage can be gained by visiting Commerical Drive at 5:00 PM on a Wednesday, not VCC-Clark at noon on a Sunday. It certainly doesn't go from no-where to no-where for the thousands that board that train, in both directions, heading to or from the east.

Congestion Pricing

Grumpy

As I said, improve transit BEFORE introducing congestion pricing. The funds from congestion pricing can then be improved to pay the financing costs of improved transit including LRT and more buses.

Regarding the poor. If someone is truly poor, they can't afford to own and operate a car anyway. Improving public transit and making transit fares less expensive would benefit the poor far more than congestion pricing would hurt. By reducing travel times for both buses and cars, congestion pricing allows everyone, including the poor, more time to earn money, spend with there families.

Anyway, why should the use of roads be free when just about everything in our society including housing and food is not. Free roads cause people to use them too much. Once one pays for the vehicle and insurance, free roads are like an all you can eat buffet. The natural tendency is not to think if one really needs to take a trip or really needs to use their car as opposed to public transit.

Congestion Pricing in London

Might want to check in what someone who really has improved transit and decreased car use.
There is a great opinion piece in the NY Times by Ken Livingstone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/opinion/02livingstone.html?ex=1184472000&en=2143f23a7e39c4b7&ei=5070

Here are some highlights
In 2003, London put in place a £5 (about $9) a day congestion charge for all cars that entered the center city (the charge is now £8). This led to an immediate drop of 70,000 cars a day in the affected zone. Traffic congestion fell by almost 20 percent. Emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were cut by more than 15 percent.

The negative side effects predicted by opponents never materialized. The retail sector in the zone has seen increases in sales that have significantly exceeded the national average. London’s theater district, which largely falls within the zone, has been enjoying record audiences. People are still flocking to London — they’re simply doing so in more efficient and less polluting ways.

There has been a marked shift away from cars and into public transport and environmentally friendly modes of travel. There has been a 4 percent modal shift into use of public transport from private cars since 2000. Simultaneously, the number of bicycle journeys on London’s major roads has risen by 83 percent, to almost half a million a day.

Specifications for a modern, more comfortable fleet were introduced, bus lanes were added, and more inspectors were put on to ensure buses ran at regular intervals. With London’s buses a more attractive alternative, the number of bus trips a day has risen to six million, an increase of two million from 2000 — with ridership growing most rapidly among the highest-paid social groups. In turn, this helped relieve pressure on the subway, ensuring it continued to run smoothly. Investment in public transport continues to this day, aided by the revenue from the congestion charge — the equivalent of some $200 million annually.

Before the program began, polls showed that public opinion was divided almost exactly evenly. Since then, opinion has shifted to 2-to-1 in favor.

JP. about a rail corridor to Whistler

The sad fact is, the rail corridor study mentioned by JP, to Whistler, did not factor in 'tilt' trains like Talgo.

The Talgo 'tilt' train used by Amtrak, from Vancouver to Eugene Ore., can go faster on existing trackage without expensive upgrades. The use of Talgo, from Vancouver to Whistler, could have competitive downtown Vancouver to Whistler travel times (Talgo could operate over 30% faster than regular trains), with the car, at a cost of no more than $500 million.

The outfit doing the study were not allowed to use modern 'tilt' (oh hell Talgo been around since the mid 1950's!)technology , nor rationalizing track use, thus what we were left with was a 1900 style passenger train, with conventional stock going to Whistler.

The same thing happened with the rail study for rapid transit up the Fraser Valley. TransLink engaged an outfit with no experience with modern LRT, to plan a 1900's era train service.

This one of the reasons Campbell sold off BC Rail, as he knew damn sure the CNR would never run a competitive passenger service.

The Rocky Mountaineers folks are now running a horribly expensive 'dinner' train service to Whistler, but at costs of over $100 per ticket, it is left to the tourist industry and is not a serious passenger service.

We do live in depressing times!

Hmm? "Talgo 'tilt' train"

30% faster than 30 mph is 39 mph. Not exactly high speed and not exactly cost effective. Used to take the old Budd cars 8 hrs to get to Lillooet.

What it would cost?

For me, an average regular zone 2 customer, I currently pay $1140 per year in fares, $220 or so in property taxes, some chump change 6 times per year on the Hydro bill, and the occaisonal cash fare for my partner.

It would be interesting to know how much property taxes would have to be, on every residence in the GVRD, to subsidize 'free transit'. If it's not over $1300/year, then I'm all for it :)

OTOH, my commute may end up being like the 99 B-Line, where 'free' transit for UBC students caused the demand to outstrip the supply... Nothing that 64 more Mark II Skytrain cars wouldn't solve.

One final, completly unrelated Millennium line thought...several times I'vb been on the e/b platform at Commercial when an e/b freight train comes chugging up the grade. Kee-ripes, that cloud of diesel smoke is sickening.... I'm reminded of how many $$$ I've spent at AirCare since the early 90s, and my car(s) have never registered more than a fart on the AirCare-o-meter, yet this CN behemoth is allowed to spew toxic smoke all over East Van.

Dave2's unrelated comment!

That diesel freight train is really only the tip of the transport iceberg. Just follow the money! Whistler's new road is to ensure the continued success of a very successful resort. The SFPR (South Fraser Perimeter Road) is a "truck" only road from Hwy 1 to Delta Port. There is also a NFPR to be built. New rail yards, rail lines, contianer (empty!) storage yards out here in Delta. What does this have to do with free transit? Who pays for all these new freight & business infrastructure additions? Could it be us? So do we subsidize "free-freight" and in turn we have to fight for any decent transit, let alone "free-transit"?

Simple ideas for simple problems

Grumpy,

You make several claims but neglect to back them up with facts.

You say that fare-free transit will not increase ridership but Dave Olsen has provided facts in one of his article on Hasselt, Belgium to back up his claim that it does:

… On the first day, bus ridership increased 783 per cent! The first full year of free-fare transit saw an increase of 900 per cent over the previous year; by 2001, the increase was up to 1,223 per cent and ridership continues to go up every day.

I also mentioned in a previous post that a 4-day "Fare-Free" trial conducted during the summer of 2003 in Windsor saw ridership go up 50%.

You mentioned a transit expert who claims that a LRT line from BCIT to UBC would "double ridership". Did this expert have any proof to back up his claim?

From the facts that have been presented so far it appears a "Simpleton" idea like fare-free transit has much better results that complex, expensive initiatives.

Delta Port

Interesting information about the South Frazer Perimeter Road being a truck only. Another issue wrt to pollution and Delta, that was brought up at the Delta Gateway Rally a few months back, is that all the US ports on the west coast have banned ships that burn low grade bunker oil. Vancouver doesn't have this ban and it doesn't look like it intends to so we are being setup to be the pollution dumping grounds of the entire west coast of NA. (and yeah, it would be nice to see some consistency and either scrap the air care or apply it do trucks as well, or better yet ban them from the city limits except for expensive permits which are hard to get)

This isn't really off topic, since Gateway is being touted as the alternative to an effective transit system. Issues on public transit and Gateway are like hand and glove. What Falcon et al doesn't talk about in public that Gateway isn't so much about easing congestion for cars on their way to work, but rather a huge Walmart pipeline running through our city.

Vancouver to Whistler by rail

The real story here.

P3 for rich, squat for you and me

To determine the magnitude of investment that should be made to improve the rail service in this corridor requires a top quality ridership and revenue forecasting study to be undertaken by a qualified firm using this report as a guide in the type of service that can be offered. When this information is obtained it will then be appropriate for the the public sector to consider what kind of Public/Private/Partnership arrangement might be achievable to upgrade the rail passenger service in the Vancouver to Whistler corridor.

That's the last paragraph, the bottom line, of the executive summary. Notice they have already decided that this will be a P3. To transport rich skiers. Yet when it comes to the general public its considered ridiculous for anything but the end user to front the whole cost.

Thankfully when the global monetary system melts down next year all this financial ripoff will be a moot issue. It's unfortunate that we couldn't have put in a decent transit system before that happens.

Canac

Is/was a fully owned subsidiary of CN. This may have changed recently though.

Skytrain profitable?

ChrisH says:

Only if you don't consider the debt service paying for the line or cars itself part of operating. It'd be nice if transit lines and cars grew on trees, but they don't.

If you went to the bank for a car loan, but could only afford to pay for "operating costs" like gas and insurance but not the principal or interest, the bank would laugh you out of their house and tell you to go look up the definition of 'operating' in any Econ100 text.

Surplus, my ass.

The debt service for the Millennium line was transferred to Translink in 1995 and cost $125 million in 2005-6 fiscal year. That means the so-called $2 million surplus revenue is actually a $123-million+ operating loss. As interest rates have gone up each year, I expect that it is more now, but it's hard to tell because the Translink Annual Reports don't break these figures out. You were only able to tell in 2005 because the line item for interest paid went up by $125 million without any major deliveries of capital equipment that year.

There is scuttlebutt that the B-99 service is a profit generator for the system, but it's only that - scuttlebutt.

Congestion pricing doesn't work

rac, if you've ever been to London recently, you'll see that traffic is as abad as ever. Congestion pricing doesn't work. Professionals just add the cost onto the bill they charge clients. Congestion pricing just makes London one of the most expensive cities in the world. Face it, people want the convenienc of driving and no matter how you try to limit roads we need more of them for more human and economic activity.

Ultimately, all the fees the socialists love to foist on us hurt working families the most.

Interesting Series - Messy Issue esp. for Grumpy

This is a good series, but the issues are so complex with information presented from only a few perspectives. It would have been great to seen a perspective from a "transit economist" - if they exist.

Grumpy, you need to get your facts straight. Bombardier has little to do with the Canada line. You know this. If we would have went with Bombardier, at least we would have compatible technology. Bombardier deserves its criticism, but your continued swipes muddy the issues further.

Your complaints about the Millennium Line are also perplexing. Big deal - you went to Clark station and did not see anyone. Are you surprised? Did you get out at Commercial, the station before, and see how packed it was?

Finally, I again am perplexed how you tend to ignore the development that surrounds the Skytrain stations. New Westminster, Joyce, Edmonds, and the stuff going up around the Millennium line.

But I am getting away from the point...

I liked the "honor system" for collecting fares. Most people paid, and the few who did not would be subject to the infrequent checks, and would occasionally be caught. At this point, it seems like I am too often being asked by someone with a gun to come up with my ticket. Put those officers who are checking tickets back on the streets so that no one is busting into my car when I am taking transit!

Congestion pricing does work

Hey Bobby Peru

At least provide a reference, an article, anything that supports your claim that congestion pricing.

Congestion pricing is much more a free market idea than a socialist idea. People pay for what they use. That is the idea behind road pricing in general. Basic supply and demand. It is supported by people including Micheal Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York City. Hardly a socialist. The BC Chamber of Commerce has also come out in favour of road price. Another bunch of socialists I guess :).

Free use of roads. Now that sounds like a socialist idea if I have ever heard one. It is not working very well either. The free use of the roads encourages too many people to use them which means no one can get where thye need to go too fast.

absolutely

"If you went to the bank for a car loan, but could only afford to pay for "operating costs" like gas and insurance but not the principal or interest, the bank would laugh you out of their house and tell you to go look up the definition of 'operating' in any Econ100 text."

Very true. However, when I go to the bank they don't ask me to figure in the costs of building and maintaining the roads and bridges my car will be driving on. That cost is born on the taxpayer. The capital expenditures of actually building the Skytrain SHOULD be born by the taxpayer. We could have gone with a lower cost method, but we didn't. My point is that the cost of operating my car is mine, and the ongoing operating costs (minus the capital costs of the system - like roads for cars) shouls be paid for by the consumer. In this way, everything but the skytrain falls short. Those small commuter busses are the worst!

Ah, Chris should the taxpayer.......

........be asked to build LRT for $20 million/km; or SkyTrain @ $80 milliom/km; or RAV @ $125 milliom/km.?

A bank will not lone you the money for a car if you cannot afford debt servicing.

Debt Servicing

The government can service the debt of many RAVs over and over again. Carole Taylor just told us that we can expect a $4.1 billion surplus. What's your point? That we chose to ride around in a cadillac instead of taurus? If you pay for the capital costs upfront, there is no debt servicing. The bank won't lend anyone the money to buy a car unless they can PAY IT OFF in a relatively short amount of time. I tend to buy things I can pay for so I don't have much debt anyways. That is why I drive a Civic and not a BMW.

My point is that taxpayers pay a lot of money to allow car drivers (like myself) to ride around in their cars by building roads and bridges. This is done for a lot of good reasons. Taxpayers also pay a lot of money to build skytrains and buy busses, etc. That is done for many good reasons as well. My point is that after the capital costs, people need to be responsible to help pay for the ongoing operating costs of their medium of travel. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the oil for your bicycle chain, the new battery in your car, or the driver of your bus. A lot of people use the skytrain, and they are more than paying for it's ongoing operating costs. The shuttles going all over the place are expensive to operate and under-utilized.

Obviously, the skytrain cost a lot more to build than a shuttle bus. But, the whole debt servicing is a red herring. The politicians chose to give us the most expensive option which is actually the best in my opinion. If you could choose to get to the same place by a bus or the skytrain what would you choose? If you have been on the Calgary LRT you'd know it isn't as nice as our skytrains. They make the city pretty ugly.

If anything the beef should be how we structure the governance of our public transit systems. Ever since they provincial government set up Translink, it has been out of control, without any real accountability to those it taxes and use its services. That Translink has been forced into debt serving at all is a joke.

These five articles were about whether or not public transit should be free. I believe that the arguement was a poor one, with data that made little sense with their central argument.

bears repeating

If anything the beef should be how we structure the governance of our public transit systems. Ever since they provincial government set up Translink, it has been out of control, without any real accountability to those it taxes and use its services.

It's going to get even worse with the planned restructuring of the translink board. At least with the system we have in place now they are beholden to the livable regions coalition. Once it is a provincial jurisdiction all of that will be over ridden by Falcon et al, which is exactly why it is being rammed through.

Grumpy Yes, RAV is more

Grumpy

Yes, RAV is more expensive than LRT but you keep overstating the difference and are even inconsistent with what you have previously stated.

A while ago I believe you thought using LRT for RAV would have been $800 million which is $42 million per km not $20 million as you stated above. The $800 million is likely low as construction prices are quite high these days. As well, if it went down Arbutus, CP would have asked for and likely got $200 million for the corridor. With the building of the two bridges, I suspect that LRT would have been over a billion.

At $2 billion for 19km RAV is $105 million per km not $125 as you stated.

RAV is faster than LRT and provides 3 minute headways which can and likely be reduced to 1.5 minutes. LRT would have been around 5 minutes at the start and likely could have been reduced to 3 minutes.

RAV will provide better service and have higher ridership than than LRT. Whether or not that is worth an extra $50 to $60 billion a km is debatable I admit.

Then again LRT would have provided better service than rapid bus which would have been $15 million per km.

You get what you pay for.

New York's failed traffic congestion pricing plan

From the New York Times You may have to sign in/up.

America's "most conservative" town has free transit

The “other Dave Olson” here chiming in with another example of free transit.

Indeed my (almost doppleganger) Dave Olsen was wise to look outside the country for positive examples of transit in action which can be found in the oddest of places.

While free transit (and quality transit in general) is oft looked at as a leftie-liberal utopian dream and conservative are wont to roll eyes and think of transit as the transport of the destitute and lazy, the “most conservative” city in America (that I've found anyhow) rolls the free buses and manages to do it clean and happily. Really.

Logan, Utah - where the hair is big and the trucks are bigger - is a university town (Utah State has 20K+ students) with only 2 bars (both closed on Sundays), a gleaming Mormon temple, a row of box stores, malls and fast food that even Surrey would envy, almost no crime and a massive police force (i know first hand ;-)).

There is little/no ecological bent whatsoever - the kids still rev engines and cruise Main on Saturday night and recycling means eating leftover casserole. Yet these hard-sells bought into free transit and - from the parents to the drinkers - love it. Go there and ask.

And a wee wishlist ...

While I think free transit is a hard sell here, I would settle for a few improvements like clean buses (both exhaust and interior), customer-friendly drivers (I am talking to you on the 15!), and schedules posted at each stop (shelter would be nice too, it does rain here Virginia).

A little tinkering with technology would go a long way for the rider’s experience too – i.e. a website with some semblance of usability and SMS “next bus” service (some SFU students are doing this I believe). Realtime announcements at stops (like in London) would be nice too but I won’t hold my breath.

As for price, a roll back of fares which make it more affordable to ride than drive for starters. Say a loonie a ride. Now, if I wanna take the wife and boy downtown and back, I can roll transit for about $20 or drive for $3 of gas + pay to park and still come out ahead (I do roll transit anyhow despite being packed shoulder to shoulder with wet strangers whilst bounding across Lion’s Gate).

Also, as a monthly pass buyer, I do not understand the erstwhile availability limits (imagine my audacity trying to get a pass on July 2nd! Took 4 stops to find one) and the “discounted” faresavers are a joke too.

Finally (rant almost done – more on my blog) enough testing and thinking about it already - Get some new buses! We are often riding the same decaying sleds as we did in the 1980s when Vancouver was deemed North America’s best transit system. Well it ain’t now.

For the record, i grew up in Whalley (well before Skytrain) and the 316/312 was my escape pod from a crappy Jr. Secondary school to my beloved downtown. I ride transit 2-3 hours a day now and visited the rolling transit museum (geeky I know). I also own a car which i use for roadtrip - and the traditional bi-annual trip to Ikea of course.

I’ve traveled to 20+ countries and ride public conveyance most everywhere I go from Guam to Japan to Amsterdam and beyond. Translink needs help fast in order cease ghettoizing the humble and noble transit rider who should be celebrated not passed-by (like i was this morning while heading to the instersection of chaos of Cambie and Broadway ... but that's another rant, one about rider safety!).