The Insiders
-
Jan
22
Issue of the Day: U-Pass
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 22, 2007 | 46 Comments
Image from WikipediaSo, as most readers know, we have a U-Pass. Students pay $22/month, and can’t opt out unless they live outside Translink. In return, we get a pass good for Transit all over the lower mainland. The fee used to be $20/month, but we voted overwhelmingly in favor of raising it by $2/month two years ago, on the promise that it’d be the last raise for the duration of the contract.
Most schools (including colleges) don’t have a U-Pass. Those that do, pay more than UBC. Every school wants one. But they don’t want to pay more than UBC does. So they formed the “U-Pass Coalition” which is arguing for a universal U-Pass for all Universities and Colleges, at the same price. AMS Council agreed to join the coalition.
The nub of the issue is that all schools want a U-Pass, at UBC’s rate. However, it’s unlikely that Translink will lower the rate to UBC’s; what’s far more likely is that UBC’s rate will have to go up in order to support a Universal U-Pass. So the basic question: are you in favor of paying a few more dollars a month in order to facilitate a U-Pass for all Vancouver-area colleges?
Pros:
- A universal U-Pass could mean better service to UBC (and others) through more bus service generally
- Transit use reduces emissions, develops community-wide sustainable transportation
- The U-Pass Coalition is an example of all the provincial schools uniting for a single cause
- Ensures a viable U-Pass at UBC
Cons:
- UBC could be paying more for so other schools get the U-Pass
- We’ve already had to pay more once, and raise fees from their initial amount
- Transit/province/UBC should be paying for improvements, not students
We asked the candidates for VP External what they thought (Tom Masterson two didn’t answer our questionnaire):
Joel Koczwarski: I support the universal U-Pass for all university and college students. It would further reduce emissions, serve as an equilizer between schools and would hopefully help bring students closer to inter-school cooperation.
Matthew Naylor: I am only willing to see our fees increase if we are able to see a proportionate increase in service. If I were to be elected to the VPX portfolio, I would lobby with the U-Pass coalition, but my first priority would be to the student of UBC. As such, I have mixed feelings about expanding the U-Pass and the U-Pass Coalition as a whole.
Chris Brush: I would like to see the U-Pass continue in its current form. (Taken from his write-up; he didn’t answer the question in our questionnaire.)
What do you think? Is an expansion of the U-Pass program something that UBC students should pay a few extra dollars a month for?
Comments
46 Comments so far
yes to raising the cost of the pass if it means other schools can get on board. we’re all in this post-secondary boat together
yes to raising the cost of the pass if it means other schools can get on board. we’re all in this post-secondary boat together
The question becomes one of how much do we raise it by?
I’ve heard numbers that range up to $28 or more for the new UPass. I think I agree with Matt on this one and that it is a question of balance. The AMS Council, especially the elected execs, are responsible for looking out for the best interests of the students that elected them. If that means refusing to join the coalition in the face of an unreasonable/unfair raise in price so be it.
However, if it is possible to secure system-wide improvements that will provide a tangible benefit to UBC-students, especially those that don’t live in the immediate UBC area, then the AMS has a duty to support the initiative.
All in all, without more information from Translink, the AMS needs to negotiate, but not commit to a price raise without knowing what its getting into.
The question becomes one of how much do we raise it by?
I’ve heard numbers that range up to $28 or more for the new UPass. I think I agree with Matt on this one and that it is a question of balance. The AMS Council, especially the elected execs, are responsible for looking out for the best interests of the students that elected them. If that means refusing to join the coalition in the face of an unreasonable/unfair raise in price so be it.
However, if it is possible to secure system-wide improvements that will provide a tangible benefit to UBC-students, especially those that don’t live in the immediate UBC area, then the AMS has a duty to support the initiative.
All in all, without more information from Translink, the AMS needs to negotiate, but not commit to a price raise without knowing what its getting into.
On a side note… that picture is great. A brand new Translink bus, all environmentally friendly and happy and whatnot…. beside it: a shiny Hummer. :)
On a side note… that picture is great. A brand new Translink bus, all environmentally friendly and happy and whatnot…. beside it: a shiny Hummer. :)
A couple small quibbles: you claim this would lead to service improvements. There’s a fundamental law called “Conservation of Buses” that states that there are only so many buses in the region. Adding service to the colleges means subtracting it (or not adding it, in the case of newly purchased buses) to other areas that are critically overcrowded, such as every UBC route.
The only advantage here is that as massive overcrowding becomes system-wide, rather more pressure can be brought to bear to find new sources of funds, and more municipalities will see the transit system straining under its load.
We can expect TransLink to add another $2-3 in a couple years when the contract’s up for renewal again, and UBC subsidizes us to the tune of $3 per student per month (which I believe they’re also doing for the UBC-O U-Pass) but doesn’t like this sort of indefinite transfer of funds to an outside body, so we might need to swallow that too. On top of that, the registrar would love to charge us an extra 0.5% tax for collecting the money and writing a cheque to TransLink. So it’s a safe bet the price will increase a bit regardless.
I’d also point out that since we’re in the coalition and support, in principle, them having the U-Pass at our (current) rate, to some extent the united lobbying group is already there, independent of the price we pay.
A couple small quibbles: you claim this would lead to service improvements. There’s a fundamental law called “Conservation of Buses” that states that there are only so many buses in the region. Adding service to the colleges means subtracting it (or not adding it, in the case of newly purchased buses) to other areas that are critically overcrowded, such as every UBC route.
The only advantage here is that as massive overcrowding becomes system-wide, rather more pressure can be brought to bear to find new sources of funds, and more municipalities will see the transit system straining under its load.
We can expect TransLink to add another $2-3 in a couple years when the contract’s up for renewal again, and UBC subsidizes us to the tune of $3 per student per month (which I believe they’re also doing for the UBC-O U-Pass) but doesn’t like this sort of indefinite transfer of funds to an outside body, so we might need to swallow that too. On top of that, the registrar would love to charge us an extra 0.5% tax for collecting the money and writing a cheque to TransLink. So it’s a safe bet the price will increase a bit regardless.
I’d also point out that since we’re in the coalition and support, in principle, them having the U-Pass at our (current) rate, to some extent the united lobbying group is already there, independent of the price we pay.
Peter: The AMS Council, especially the elected execs, are responsible for looking out for the best interests of the students that elected them. If that means refusing to join the coalition in the face of an unreasonable/unfair raise in price so be it.
UBC by its sheer number has been successful (on a relative scale to other postsecondary institutions) in getting this U Pass contract at a low rate.
The Colleges are looking at 34$ a month contingent on all colleges approving this by referendum. The prices shoot up to 40$ if Kwantlen is excluded, for example.
It is not unreasonable to point at a sentiment of elitism by ensuing access to Translink Services at a privileged price. Acknowledging the potential for sacrifice of exclusive concentrated service improvement for UBC-oriented transit service, a common post-secondary buspass program may tactically be a diplomatic move in uniting the province’s postsecondary schools in lobbying in general – unrestricted to tranportation services alone. We’ve been having trouble connecting with other institutions for a number of speculative reasons (CASA/CFS alignments is one), but this could be a catalyst for a greater unity in lobbying the provice on other postsecondary issues such as tuition and the (dead) grant program. Furthermore, there is the potential that lobbying through the U Pass coalition from a position of a common U Pass program, in the long term (10, 20 years down the road) our rate of bus fee increase may actually be lower. And not only within our school, but across all (post-sec) schools in the province.
On the other hand, by “giving into” Translink’s demands to increase U Pass fees once more we may be compromising our policy motion which called for no buspass increase for the next 2 years.
Peter: The AMS Council, especially the elected execs, are responsible for looking out for the best interests of the students that elected them. If that means refusing to join the coalition in the face of an unreasonable/unfair raise in price so be it.
UBC by its sheer number has been successful (on a relative scale to other postsecondary institutions) in getting this U Pass contract at a low rate.
The Colleges are looking at 34$ a month contingent on all colleges approving this by referendum. The prices shoot up to 40$ if Kwantlen is excluded, for example.
It is not unreasonable to point at a sentiment of elitism by ensuing access to Translink Services at a privileged price. Acknowledging the potential for sacrifice of exclusive concentrated service improvement for UBC-oriented transit service, a common post-secondary buspass program may tactically be a diplomatic move in uniting the province’s postsecondary schools in lobbying in general – unrestricted to tranportation services alone. We’ve been having trouble connecting with other institutions for a number of speculative reasons (CASA/CFS alignments is one), but this could be a catalyst for a greater unity in lobbying the provice on other postsecondary issues such as tuition and the (dead) grant program. Furthermore, there is the potential that lobbying through the U Pass coalition from a position of a common U Pass program, in the long term (10, 20 years down the road) our rate of bus fee increase may actually be lower. And not only within our school, but across all (post-sec) schools in the province.
On the other hand, by “giving into” Translink’s demands to increase U Pass fees once more we may be compromising our policy motion which called for no buspass increase for the next 2 years.
Last time I checked, AMS executives promised to represent me, not students in some other random college. Those kids can steal hubcaps to get the extra money, for all that UBC students care.
The AMS promised no U-Pass price hikes. If they break their promise to benefit students in other schools, people are going to be upset.
Last time I checked, AMS executives promised to represent me, not students in some other random college. Those kids can steal hubcaps to get the extra money, for all that UBC students care.
The AMS promised no U-Pass price hikes. If they break their promise to benefit students in other schools, people are going to be upset.
Gina, UBC’s number of students had very little to do with getting a U-Pass at such a low rate. If anything it was actually a problem because an increase in ridership puts a tremendous strain on busses.
The reason UBC’s price is low is because of ride-share. I don’t remember the exact numbers but you take the current number of students riding the bus, multiply by the money they would pay for bus passes, add on what you think a mandatory bus pass would do to ridership, and divide by the total number of students. UBC ridership was very low which created a low price. Vancouver Community College ridership is very high, which is why they will pay a higher price. Translink has to stay revenue neutral.
I recognize that UBC/SFU can act as a modifier when looking at all these schools together, but it’s a supply and demand calculation. UBC students were not demanding bus passes at the current price. It was lowered and then they did. VCC students have been demanding bus passes at $68 and have shown themselves to Translink as being wiling to pay that.
Gina, UBC’s number of students had very little to do with getting a U-Pass at such a low rate. If anything it was actually a problem because an increase in ridership puts a tremendous strain on busses.
The reason UBC’s price is low is because of ride-share. I don’t remember the exact numbers but you take the current number of students riding the bus, multiply by the money they would pay for bus passes, add on what you think a mandatory bus pass would do to ridership, and divide by the total number of students. UBC ridership was very low which created a low price. Vancouver Community College ridership is very high, which is why they will pay a higher price. Translink has to stay revenue neutral.
I recognize that UBC/SFU can act as a modifier when looking at all these schools together, but it’s a supply and demand calculation. UBC students were not demanding bus passes at the current price. It was lowered and then they did. VCC students have been demanding bus passes at $68 and have shown themselves to Translink as being wiling to pay that.
Hi Spencer, yes you’re right it was a supply/demand calculation. It was also a revenue calculation based on the number of people who would be paying this flatrate fee.
The argument of united front lobbying against buspass fee increases still stands.
I’m asking you to project 10 years down the road, instead of the next few while you and I are sill part of the institution. There is the potential (though not a guarantee) that our lobbying is going to be much more effective when there is one buspass fee the students of BC are paying.
Hi Spencer, yes you’re right it was a supply/demand calculation. It was also a revenue calculation based on the number of people who would be paying this flatrate fee.
The argument of united front lobbying against buspass fee increases still stands.
I’m asking you to project 10 years down the road, instead of the next few while you and I are sill part of the institution. There is the potential (though not a guarantee) that our lobbying is going to be much more effective when there is one buspass fee the students of BC are paying.
go Princess Gina!
U-PASS UNITED FRONT!
a cause i can get behind!
also: by giving everyone a cheap busfare, we open transit possibilites (wankspeak, but whatever) for people to travel beyond one bus zone. like from surrey to koerner library, for example. although that’s more of a pigrimage, really.
go Princess Gina!
U-PASS UNITED FRONT!
a cause i can get behind!
also: by giving everyone a cheap busfare, we open transit possibilites (wankspeak, but whatever) for people to travel beyond one bus zone. like from surrey to koerner library, for example. although that’s more of a pigrimage, really.
Gina, I’m not arguing with that. I’m just disspelling the myth that the reason UBC has a low price is anything to do with size.
Gina, I’m not arguing with that. I’m just disspelling the myth that the reason UBC has a low price is anything to do with size.
It just so happens that the day I was shadowing a transit planner at Translink was the day when they hosted 7 colleges, in addition with UBC and SFU to discuss the U-Pass. While I applaud the actions of students on this board seeking out a united U-pass there are a few things that should be mentioned.
First, all of the colleges as well as UBC and SFU would need to have a referendum in the same year. Translink indicated they wanted all the referendums in the same year so they could get all the legal agreements in place at the same time.
Second, a few years ago the AMS held a referendum to increase the Health and Dental Plan fees. In my opinion, it was not made clear enough to students what they were voting for so they failed to make quorum and also the turnout overwhelmingly voted ‘No.’ I have little doubt that U-pass would reach quorum, but this may very well lend credit to the ‘No’ side of the U-pass debate. UBC students on the whole may not be as benevolent as the comments that the VP External candidates have made.
Finally, there is erroneous information listed about the future of the U-pass price going up. The U-Pass will have to go to referendum this year. Because the AMS did not want to tie the hands of students to committing to the U-Pass forever, there is potentially a U-pass referendum every two years. The last referendum was in 2005. The AMS undertook this referendum understanding that there would potentially be another fare increase. Whether UBC students approve it is another question. And whether UBC students approve a fare increase to subsidize other students is definitely a question worth putting to UBC students. But if they vote ‘No’ then they also will also being saying goodbye to the U-pass program.
It just so happens that the day I was shadowing a transit planner at Translink was the day when they hosted 7 colleges, in addition with UBC and SFU to discuss the U-Pass. While I applaud the actions of students on this board seeking out a united U-pass there are a few things that should be mentioned.
First, all of the colleges as well as UBC and SFU would need to have a referendum in the same year. Translink indicated they wanted all the referendums in the same year so they could get all the legal agreements in place at the same time.
Second, a few years ago the AMS held a referendum to increase the Health and Dental Plan fees. In my opinion, it was not made clear enough to students what they were voting for so they failed to make quorum and also the turnout overwhelmingly voted ‘No.’ I have little doubt that U-pass would reach quorum, but this may very well lend credit to the ‘No’ side of the U-pass debate. UBC students on the whole may not be as benevolent as the comments that the VP External candidates have made.
Finally, there is erroneous information listed about the future of the U-pass price going up. The U-Pass will have to go to referendum this year. Because the AMS did not want to tie the hands of students to committing to the U-Pass forever, there is potentially a U-pass referendum every two years. The last referendum was in 2005. The AMS undertook this referendum understanding that there would potentially be another fare increase. Whether UBC students approve it is another question. And whether UBC students approve a fare increase to subsidize other students is definitely a question worth putting to UBC students. But if they vote ‘No’ then they also will also being saying goodbye to the U-pass program.
spencer, you miss the point
(and the point is)
whether the ams joins a movement for a bus pass that’s the same price for all lower mainland students.
do you think they should?
i’m pretty sure that gina’s for it. am i right?
politics!
spencer, you miss the point
(and the point is)
whether the ams joins a movement for a bus pass that’s the same price for all lower mainland students.
do you think they should?
i’m pretty sure that gina’s for it. am i right?
politics!
united u-pass. shoot for the stars, young dreamers
but take holly’s advice into consideration when negotiating, of course
united u-pass. shoot for the stars, young dreamers
but take holly’s advice into consideration when negotiating, of course
Anon 9:20 –
There’s reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. I just prefer to comment on misinformation or truly unreasonable opinions. Ex-executives shouldn’t publically state a preference re: real decisions that have to be made because it may be seen as critical of current councils, and goodness knows they have enough pressure without old hacks like me criticizing them.
Anon 9:20 –
There’s reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. I just prefer to comment on misinformation or truly unreasonable opinions. Ex-executives shouldn’t publically state a preference re: real decisions that have to be made because it may be seen as critical of current councils, and goodness knows they have enough pressure without old hacks like me criticizing them.
spencer that is not an answer buddy
i’m inviting you to give your insight. don’t hold back!
spencer that is not an answer buddy
i’m inviting you to give your insight. don’t hold back!
execs should comment on councils. you guys know best. seriously
execs should comment on councils. you guys know best. seriously
somebody call patillo. get him to spill his guts.
his photo is so intriguing
somebody call patillo. get him to spill his guts.
his photo is so intriguing
Ask and you shall receive.
Ian posts on our blog
Ask and you shall receive.
Ian posts on our blog
Anon,
I take the point, but I would prefer to give my critiques quietly :)
Anon,
I take the point, but I would prefer to give my critiques quietly :)
i know this isnt whats being discussed here but i just think that students who do not use the public transportation system should be able to opt out of the U-Pass.
i know this isnt whats being discussed here but i just think that students who do not use the public transportation system should be able to opt out of the U-Pass.
I think that the U Pass needs to be a two tierd system. That is, that the Canadian citizens should be given free U-Passes while making foreigners pay higher costs for U-Passes.
I think that the U Pass needs to be a two tierd system. That is, that the Canadian citizens should be given free U-Passes while making foreigners pay higher costs for U-Passes.