Ask the average urban dweller why he prefers to drive his car to work instead of riding a bus and, indirectly, he will tell you why public transit systems the continent over are unable to make a profit.

He will say he favors his car because of speed, convenience and comfort in getting to his job, and that economics is not a major consideration.

That's the consensus of countless studies conducted in cities throughout Canada and the U.S. and it's every bit as true in Metro Winnipeg as elsewhere.

Present bus fare in Greater Winnipeg for most adults is 25 cents. And, according to research, a decrease in fares would result in more riders, just as an increase tends to drive away a certain percentage of passengers.

"If we did go to a nickel fare we would get more riders but the key to the whole thing is you could never attract enough riders to offset the lower fare," says Metro's streets and transit director H. F. Burns.

The increase in riders, in fact, could be so great Metro Transit's present bus fleet of 500 would be unable to cope during peak rush hours. And it would do little to improve the system's gloomy financial situation.

"Even if we had the most extensive rapid transit system and good feeder bus service, we could still only get about 30 per cent of the population riding transit," he said in an interview.

Elimination of fares hasn't proven to be the answer to present day congestion in large urban centres. A study conducted in an eastern U.S. city that tried it showed an increase in passengers of only about five to 10 per cent.

"It was of a very insignificant nature . . . it really wouldn't help to solve the problem," the director said.

There appears to be no solution to the financial problem — no solution, that is for a transit system to provide efficient service without incurring a hefty deficit.

There are proposals for a solution but, in all cases, they are not acceptable to the other parties involved (Metro, the government, the passengers themselves, the auto drivers, police . . .)

"It is now impossible to have a satisfactory level of service and make a profit," he said.

Present cost of operating a Metro Transit bus is about $10 per hour, while the average revenue brought in through the farebox is only $8.

No routes are able to make money on an annual basis. The closest to break-even are the University and Portage-East Kildonan bus routes which realize more than $10 per hour on weekdays. However, revenues drop on the weekend, putting both runs in the red with the rest of the system. Average revenue per hour last year ranged from $2.31 on the St. Norbert bus to $9.41 on the University run.

Transit revenue for 1968 totalled $8,662,000, of which passenger revenue made up $8,334,027. In the meantime, costs continued to soar and reached a total of $12,779,107 an increase of $1,449,230 over the previous year. Most of this was in higher wages, which totalled $7,676,204, or 88.6 per cent of the revenue dollar.

"The only answer to that way costs is automation, and then you get into higher capital costs, such as in rapid transit.

"But, then you still need a good feeder bus system on the surface to bring passengers to the subway," Mr. Burns said.

However, he noted a road pricing scheme is now under investigation in Great Britain which would limit or discourage the use of private vehicles within the central downtown areas. All private vehicles would be charged a fee on entering the central city.

"They believe this is technically feasible and they are looking into this seriously. However, you have to give people a good alternative and this means and upgrading of transit service," he said.

A number of U.S. cities, including New York and Atlanta, Ga. have designated various traffic lanes as transit lanes only during rush-hour traffic. In fact, New York's Fifth Avenue has an all-day transit lane in effect.

"The concept of transit operating at a profit has gone by the board and all cities are subsidizing operations," Mr. Burns said.

The provincial government now underwrites 50 per cent of Metro's annual capital streets projects, as well as a portion of maintenance costs. Five per cent of the transit system's net operating revenue or the transit deficit, whichever is the lesser, is also paid by the province. The balance is made up through municipal taxes. There is no federal assistance for transit.

Last year the transit system incurred an operating loss of $4,798,000, of which the provincial government paid $256,000, or three per cent. This means taxpayers across the province are subsidizing the system. This year the province is expected to provide up to $425,000. At the same time, the operating loss is expected to reach $3,194,000.

While transit systems in Canada receive no assistance from Ottawa, the U.S. government has committed itself to a total of $10,000,000,000 over the next 12 years to aid that country's deteriorating public transit industry.

From 1945 to 1965, Winnipeg experienced a 63 per cent decline in annual transit riders on a per capita basis. Since about 1951, the rate of decline has decreased as the number of cars appeared to level off at about 117 rides per person a year. Total riding also reached its lowest level in 1962. However, total riders per capita last year reached a high second only to Toronto and Montreal.

Mr. Burns noted, however, that the trend in most other Canadian cities has risen and this is also expected to happen here.

Ample evidence of this trend is the 6.3 per cent decline in riders last year when there were 57,728,000 passengers, compared with 61,586,000 in 1968.

A look at the projected population increase by 1991 indicates Metro Winnipeg's present transportation system will be incapable of accommodating the accompanying increases in travel demands.

The trend in automobile registrations indicates that in 20 years approximately 312,000 vehicles will be registered in the Metro Winnipeg area, compared with 170,908 at the end of 1968.

The population is expected to grow to 780,000 from the present 516,644, and the physical size of the city will alost double to cover 112 square miles.

Assuming that only about 30 per cent of the urban population at that time will ride transit, it becomes evident that, together with an updated transit system, a major streets program will be required to accommodate the remaining population which will drive cars to work.

To Mr. Burns, this means an integrated transportation system with each method utilized to its best advantage.

"The objective should be to give people a choice and try to make that choice competative with the automobile, although this is almost impossible," the director said.

There is, of course, an alternative to co-ordinated transportation planning, but the results would be a problem of almost unimaginable dimensions.

First there is congestion. As more cars pour into the streets, the whole system would naturally become more crowded and, while transportation would still be possible, rapid transportation by auto, except in off-peak hours, would be a thing of the past.

Already there are signs of this in the downtown area where, during rush hour, about 100 buses travel the central core at an average speed of about four miles per hour.

"As long as it's a surface transit system, service is directly related to the general traffic flow . . . buses can only go as fast as the cars," said Mr. Burns.

At the same time, urban areas would invest in more highways and parking facilities, transforming potentially valuable land into temporary storage for vehicles.

And finally, the mass of gasoline burning automobiles converging into the central city would create an air pollution problem not easily cured.

It would appear that Winnipeg, as a relatively young metropolitan area, has a decided advantage in tackling the problem before it becomes acute.

Land for rights-of-way would be less expensive when acquired in advance, and the disruptive effects of land acquisition on citizens and business would be minimized. Thus, the total cost of the entire system — both streets and rapid transit — would be less if planned years in advance.

Transit officials say experience indicates a metropolitan area with a population of 1,000,000 requires a rapid transit system. The Greater Winnipeg Area Transportation Study, completed last year, states construction of a rapid transit system in Winnipeg should begin by 1981 in order to meet transportation demands.

The massive six-year study by Metro streets and transit officials recommended $767,000,000 be poured into construction of new roads, super highways, bridges and a subway in order to provide an adequate transportation system in the Metro area.

Although the report has not received approval from Metro Council, it is being used as a guideline for all future capital streets projects.

The recommended 5.4-mile subway would comprise a line extending from Polo Park to Main St. and north to Hespeler Ave. and Henderson Hwy., with 11 stations along the line.

Mr. Burns said, however, construction of such a system should start much soon.

"We are hoping that in the next decade a modified system of rapid transit will be developed which will be less costly than the conventional subway system as we know it."

An elevated facility, he said, would be "quite acceptable, provided it has its own right-of-way.

A study on urban transportation conducted by the Canadian Good Roads Association three years ago stressed that a city's character and its transportation system are so inter-related, a change in one has a direct effect on the other.

Winnipeg, like most Canadian cites, was laid out for horse-drawn vehicles and street railway systems. During the Depression and the Second World War there was neither concern nor funds for improvement of urban transportation. As a result, most urban transportation systems emerged from the war with 25 years of obsolescence.

It is this understanding of the inter-relation between urban transportation and city form which is clearly vital to the moulding of public policies for the even greater investments that lie ahead.