LETTITOR.

 

The fare
to get on the bus
goes up and up

..up and up ...up and up
Dear TransLink,

How have you been? Sticking to your resolutions? Staying fiscally responsible? I kid. Me? Oh, well, I’ve gotta
pay rent and buy groceries to survive. Then there’s utilities—I need electricity and Internet access to do my job
after all—credit card payments, as well as trying to squirrel away the odd nickel and dime towards my eventual
return to the world of post-secondary education. Oh, what’s that, a fare increase? And it was already approved by the
Mayor’s Council back in 2009 as part of your “Strategic Plan”? You never were a very good listener.

As someone who does not currently qualify for a U-Pass—a subject I’ll refrain from commenting on here—I fork over in excess
of $1,000 to TransLink on an annual basis. For the services provided, I think it’s a fair deal. I live close to a SkyTrain and it gets
me where I need to go in tandem with the occasional trip on a B-Line or night bus. Spending $81 a month on a 1-zone FareCard fits
in my budget; spending anywhere from $10 to $20 a month in Ad-fare also fits in my budget; a 10 to 13 per cent increase, across all
zones, does not.

If you recall, the last fare hike was back in 2008, which raised the price of a 1-zone ticket from $2.25 to $2.50. TransLink’s newest
proposal—currently under review by the Transit Commission, set to take effect early next year—is poised to raise the price of a 1-zone

ticket by another 25 cents to $2.75, the price of a 2-zone ticket from $3.75 to $4.25, and the already painful expense of a 3-zone ticket
from $5.00 to a grimace-inducing $5.50. Forecasting an estimated $48 million in additional revenue in 2013 if the increased rates pass,
it’s important now more than ever to consider what we as commuters stand to gain, maintain, or lose in a $2.75 for 1-zone world.

With the Evergreen Line seemingly, finally on track for 2016, I think it’s safe to assume that at least a portion of this revenue will go
towards seeing that project find a happy conclusion (fingers crossed). Additionally, as older trains and buses make their final stop at
the great station in the sky, it’s logical to think that a new fleet will require the additional funding, not to mention what’s already
required to maintain those currently active. I can’t say I’d be too sad to see a few more of the older, more dilapidated, transports
retire. While I’d like to sit here on my soapbox slinging stones, considering that we’re talking about a company that once faced
a $150-million deficit, combined with the impact of inflation, I understand that creating an infrastructure that works costs
money. (Note: It’s also important to keep in mind that there are other potentially larger issues—tlike increases to already too-
high fuel taxes and parking costs—on the table as part of TransLink’s Funding Stabilization Plan).

An increase in the price of fares is inevitable. My question is why key concerns like security, fare-dodgery, and
SkyTrain operation times continue to get shelved in favour of funding bloated, multimillion dollar projects
that spend years in he-said-she-said-we’re-not-doing-it-ok-we’ll-do-it-now limbo. With the TransLink
Commission set to deliver its verdict sometime this March, there’s still time to voice your concerns as
student transit users. Send your comments directly to comments@translinkcommission.org or
stop by the Commission’s Facebook page for more information. Is a fare increase a necessary
money grab or is it just another example of TransLink’s financial short-sightedness?

You be the judge.

Later days,

Cody Klyne
Editor in chief
The Other Press