PUBLIC SERVICE NEWS

Issued by Transit Dep't

Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg

Vol. 46—No. 6, Sept. 1961

WE GET QUESTIONS

During the course of a year many hundreds of citizens ask questions about transit service. Many more probably have them in mind but don't get around to asking them. We take this opportunity, therefore, to list some of the more frequently asked questions, along with the answers to them.

Other essential services are provided in the new suburban residential area to which we have moved, so why can't we have bus service?

As we have previously pointed out in these columns, those who provide other essential services to new residential areas, such as your telephone, light and power and water utilities, know that every home in the area will use their services. They also know that whether the services are used a lot or a little, the revenue they receive from each home will never drop below a certain minimum.

Transit, however, is not in the happy position of being guaranteed a fixed revenue. It must maintain and operate expensive equipment, including much higher labor costs than most other utilities, to provide the service, but the customer only pays for the service if and when used. Suburban routes are invariably the heaviest losers, even though on some routes zone fares are charged. Some of the reasons for this are that traffic is mostly one way, with buses usually travelling one way empty, and they must travel long distances for a comparatively few passengers.

On seven suburban routes revenue received per hour varies from $2.41 to a high of $3.82. Since it costs $6.50 per hour to operate a bus, the loss must be made up by passengers on other routes. It is obvious, therefore, that suburban service must be carefully controlled lest it force too big a drain on "main line" passengers and higher fares for all, which in turn, would lead to a further loss in riders.

Why don't you run buses more frequently to encourage more people to ride them?

Certainly service would be more attractive if it were economically possible to run buses as often as needed, for maximum convenience without regard to the number of passengers carried or to where the money might come from to pay for the service.

The transit system, however, has been required to operate as a self-supporting utility and the only funds available to it with which to pay operating costs, are those you deposit in the fare boxes. Despite the most modern equipment and efficient operation, operating costs continue to rise. On the other hand, the number of riders continues to decline and buses must travel farther and farther to carry them. It is expected that revenues collected in 1961 will fall $600,000 short of meeting the operating costs of service now provided. The additional cost of operating a single extra bus, twelve hours a day, would amount to just under $20,000 a year.

Some transit systems, to prove or disprove the theory that more frequent service would attract more riders, actually conducted experiments by operating a more frequent service than the number of riders indicated was necessary. The experiments were soon dropped when the additional passengers failed to materialize.

In the past, buses on some routes did run more frequently at certain times of day than they do now. It should be remembered in that connection that times between buses was lengthened after riding had declined.

Until some other means are devised to pay for the additional service, the amount of service provided must be in proportion to the number of people using it. When more people ride, then buses can be run more often. Running a lot of buses to serve a few passengers is like planning a banquet for 100 and having 10 show up.

Would not more people ride buses if fares were reduced?

A number of transit systems in Canada and the United States sought the answer to this question by actually reducing fares for trial periods. In some cases slight increases in riding did occur. In none of the experiments, however, was the increase in riding sufficient to offset the loss of revenue resulting from the lower fare and the experiments were soon dropped.

Since the cost of providing service must be shared by those who use it, it follows that the greater number of riders the lower because the cost per ride, or fare required. Operating costs have continued to rise, however, and the number of riders has declined to the point where present fares are not sufficient to pay the costs. It is expected that more than half a million dollars of the fare stabilization fund will be required to offset losses incurred by operations in 1961.

Reduced fares, in view of the above, would amount to economic suicide for your transit system.

When I ride to and from work, buses are full — so how come you don't make money?

Rush hour riders definitely do help hold the line on fares. However, rush hour revenue is not all "gravy" as it might appear to be. More than half the total passengers we carry on an average winter weekday, travel during the two short rush hour periods from 7 to 9 a.m. and from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. 373 buses are required to handle rush hour riders in the morning peak and 394 in the afternoon peak. During mid-day, however, 197 buses are sufficient to handle riders and in the evenings only 110 are required.

To handle this peak demand lasting only a few hours per day, five days per week, nearly 200 buses must be purchased, housed, serviced, maintained and drivers hired to operate them with little chance of earning anything towards their keep during the other 17 hours of service — or all day Sundays and Holidays. This situation is further aggravated during the summer months when total daily riding drops off as much as 25% or 30% from winter levels.

The buses you travel on during rush hours might be full but frequently buses travelling in the opposite direction are practically empty.

Also adding to the cost of rush hour service are the extra hours of work required of many operators who receive time and a half instead of the regular hourly pay.

Has transit any future in today's modern cities?

Yes, an increasingly important one. The efforts of many of the most "auto-mated" cities in the world to accommodate an unlimited number of autos in the downtown area, have proved both costly and ineffective. Costly and land-hungry freeways and other facilities encourage more and more people to drive downtown and have compounded traffic congestion. To extricate themselves from the traffic mess, many of these cities are now developing modern rapid transit systems.

The importance of public transit was recently recognized by the U.S. Federal Government when it passed an appropriation of $75,000,000 in Federal aid for transit. Part of this was earmarked for low cost loans for improvements to mass transportation systems and part to finance transit demonstration projects. While these grants only scratch the surface, they will serve to show what can be done in improving mass transportation aside from the dangerous device of providing an unlimited number of additional highways for an unlimited number of additional autos. A notable Canadian example of what can be accomplished by rapid transit is that of the Toronto Transportation Commission's subway system. The North-South Yonge St. subway has been highly successful in moving large numbers of people. It has also helped preserve the downtown area and, in fact, has greatly increased the assessed value of property adjacent to its route. The success of the system has prompted Metro Toronto to proceed with the construction of the next stage of its subway system, years in advance of the date originally planned.

Public transit can help solve the problem of traffic congestion if given proper public understanding and support.