Waterloo Region Connected
Grand River Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13)



RE: Grand River Transit - chutten - 12-18-2015

(12-17-2015, 09:47 PM)Canard Wrote:
(12-17-2015, 11:12 AM)chutten Wrote: (begin comments written by people who don't and won't use public transit attacking this idea.)

(begin comments written by people who do and will use public transit supporting this idea.)

Darn, I don't fit into either of your dichotomies, so I guess I can't reply to this thread.

(I'm a motorist and would have no problem paying more in taxes to make public transport fareless)

Well, those two were the trollish parts of the comment, so feel free to ignore.


RE: Grand River Transit - Markster - 12-18-2015

Yeah, chutten didn't declare that those were the only two kinds of people. Just the two kinds who are most likely to be arguing on the internet about the issue.


RE: Grand River Transit - Memph - 12-18-2015

(12-17-2015, 01:40 PM)MidTowner Wrote: I don't know what GRT's farebox recovery rate is, but I seem to recall it's in the high thirty percent range. I do know that their goal is to increase it to 50%.

Roads are by and large funded through property taxes paid regardless of the extent to which someone might use them. So maybe transit should be funded the same way. But I don't think the former case is right- roads should be to a much greater extent be paid for through tools like gas or vehicle distance traveled taxes (or, even better, direct tolls where it makes sense).

I've read that Tallinn's program hasn't significantly increased ridership. And I've also read suggestions that fare-free transit decreases user's sense of ownership of the system, with some unpleasant results (increased vandalism, that kind of thing). I don't know. I'm personally generally of the mind that giving people pricing cues (by charging them something, even if a far cry from the true cost) probably results in more efficient usage. Hey, maybe the sweet spot is to charge transit users enough to cover the costs of the fare collection system.

Not here... I think prices would have to be too high to get 100% farebox recovery at this point, and yeah it would cause problems for the lower income users. Farebox recovery for GRT was about 37% in 2010, so we'd be talking about an almost 3-fold increase.

With smaller, lower density cities, the problem is that in order to provide a reasonable level of coverage, you need to run a lot of buses that are largely empty. On some routes the buses will be well used, but others not. The goal would be to increase ridership to the point where the buses are more full, and tripling fares will probably reduce ridership significantly... if tripling fares causes ridership to decrease 10 fold and only allows GRT to cut costs by 50% while adjusting to lower ridership levels for example, farebox recovery isn't improving. Not to mention the various consequences that the region will have to pay for in other ways like more traffic and reduced mobility.

Edit: Just realized I misread your post.  Confused


RE: Grand River Transit - Osiris - 12-19-2015

(12-18-2015, 11:12 PM)Memph Wrote:
(12-17-2015, 01:40 PM)MidTowner Wrote: I don't know what GRT's farebox recovery rate is, but I seem to recall it's in the high thirty percent range. I do know that their goal is to increase it to 50%.

Roads are by and large funded through property taxes paid regardless of the extent to which someone might use them. So maybe transit should be funded the same way. But I don't think the former case is right- roads should be to a much greater extent be paid for through tools like gas or vehicle distance traveled taxes (or, even better, direct tolls where it makes sense).

I've read that Tallinn's program hasn't significantly increased ridership. And I've also read suggestions that fare-free transit decreases user's sense of ownership of the system, with some unpleasant results (increased vandalism, that kind of thing). I don't know. I'm personally generally of the mind that giving people pricing cues (by charging them something, even if a far cry from the true cost) probably results in more efficient usage. Hey, maybe the sweet spot is to charge transit users enough to cover the costs of the fare collection system.

Not here... I think prices would have to be too high to get 100% farebox recovery at this point, and yeah it would cause problems for the lower income users. Farebox recovery for GRT was about 37% in 2010, so we'd be talking about an almost 3-fold increase.

I'm fairly certain MidTowner was saying that the fares should be enough to cover what it costs to collect the fares, not run the entire system. A legitimate, albeit tongue-in-cheek insight.


RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 12-19-2015

(12-19-2015, 08:40 AM)Osiris Wrote: I'm fairly certain MidTowner was saying that the fares should be enough to cover what it costs to collect the fares, not run the entire system. A legitimate, albeit tongue-in-cheek insight.

Yes, that's right (and no worries, Memph). It was a tongue-in-cheek observation, but it's not at all unprecedented that a system would see a net savings to stop spending money collecting fares (the one that comes to mind is the Staten Island Ferry).


RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 12-20-2015

(12-19-2015, 08:40 AM)Osiris Wrote: I'm fairly certain MidTowner was saying that the fares should be enough to cover what it costs to collect the fares, not run the entire system. A legitimate, albeit tongue-in-cheek insight.

But seriously ... what would be the incremental cost to eliminate fares altogether?  The taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the costs, and eliminating fares would simplify a lot of things -- not to mention substantially increase ridership.  The cost per passenger might not change at all if this were to increase ridership by 50%.

This is a radical option, but is it really so crazy?  (Full disclosure: it has been more than 10 years since I set foot on GRT/Kitchener Transit, although I fully intend to use the LRT once it's ready.)


RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 12-20-2015

(12-20-2015, 09:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: But seriously ... what would be the incremental cost to eliminate fares altogether?  The taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the costs, and eliminating fares would simplify a lot of things -- not to mention substantially increase ridership.  The cost per passenger might not change at all if this were to increase ridership by 50%.

This is a radical option, but is it really so crazy?  (Full disclosure: it has been more than 10 years since I set foot on GRT/Kitchener Transit, although I fully intend to use the LRT once it's ready.)

I bet you're right that costs would not dramatically increase if the system were to become free of fares. We'd save on fare collection infrastructure, and we'd save on time. And we'd serve more passengers, as you note.

Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.


RE: Grand River Transit - BuildingScout - 12-20-2015

(12-20-2015, 09:50 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.

The LRT experience on rails is radically different to a bus service. This has been repeatedly shown by studies. Also, I think people will use the LRT from Norhtfield/RT Park into Uptown as the lunch time express. There is a dearth of options for eating there and now you and your buddies can jump on the LRT, grab lunch at Nick and Nats or Beertown or Famoso and then head back to work in five minutes.


RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 12-20-2015

(12-20-2015, 09:50 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.

First thing, I am now living downtown, since November, after living first in the suburbs and then in Woolwich.  We still have (two!) cars, but the idea of using the LRT to get groceries or go to the LCBO is definitely appealing.  Maybe the bus would do the same (7?) but with the current construction it's a bit crazy anyway, so we're driving for now, maybe some bicycling once the weather improves in the spring. 

We don't really go to the malls often enough for those routes to be relevant to us, though.


RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 12-20-2015

Yeah, it's the comfort of the ride and the cachet of a train that will have people ride an LRT who would never set foot on a bus.


RE: Grand River Transit - mpd618 - 12-20-2015

(12-20-2015, 09:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: But seriously ... what would be the incremental cost to eliminate fares altogether?  The taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the costs, and eliminating fares would simplify a lot of things -- not to mention substantially increase ridership.  The cost per passenger might not change at all if this were to increase ridership by 50%.

This is a radical option, but is it really so crazy?

The foregone current farebox revenue plus the increased costs due to that increased ridership means this is a pretty expensive proposition.


RE: Grand River Transit - plam - 12-21-2015

(12-20-2015, 09:50 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.

Me, I'm pretty sure I'll rarely take Ion. I prefer riding my bicycle these days. I used to take transit in Montreal and still do (but I did get in 46km on bicycle in Montreal today; I don't usually go that far in K-W but I have had days like that).

I agree with BuildingScout. Trains attract some riders who aren't just trying to get from A to B but who are looking for a certain level of comfort that they don't perceive to exist with buses. Or they've had actively frustrating bus experiences like riding from Waterloo to somewhere in Kitchener and having the bus wait at Charles St for 20 minutes for no apparent reason.

Trains often do provide a smoother ride than buses, although that's not universally true; the Montreal metro was at times as bumpy as I remember it being in my youth; and Zurich buses are sometimes quite smooth (but Zurich streets are also always better paved than Montreal streets).

It's also easier to figure out where the Ion goes than the GRT network. Sure, lots of people have phones that will tell them which bus to get on. But even so, I was in Toronto the other day and it wasn't that easy to navigate the TTC bus system (and I didn't collect a transfer so I had to double pay, sigh.)


RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 12-21-2015

(12-20-2015, 10:00 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: The LRT experience on rails is radically different to a bus service. This has been repeatedly shown by studies. Also, I think people will use the LRT from Norhtfield/RT Park into Uptown as the lunch time express. There is a dearth of options for eating there and now you and your buddies can jump on the LRT, grab lunch at Nick and Nats or Beertown or Famoso and then head back to work in five minutes.

I hope the do a better job of creating connections in Waterloo than I have seen plans for so far. As I see it, point-to-point transit will be improved by ION, but without efficient transfers to GRT, overall it will be a worse experience than we currently have.


RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 12-21-2015

(12-20-2015, 10:58 PM)tomh009 Wrote: First thing, I am now living downtown, since November, after living first in the suburbs and then in Woolwich.  We still have (two!) cars, but the idea of using the LRT to get groceries or go to the LCBO is definitely appealing.  Maybe the bus would do the same (7?) but with the current construction it's a bit crazy anyway, so we're driving for now, maybe some bicycling once the weather improves in the spring. 

We don't really go to the malls often enough for those routes to be relevant to us, though.

Thanks. No doubt it's a poor time to start trying to take transit in Waterloo Region.

Regarding what other posters have said about Ion's appeal, I'm not sure I "buy" that a train is inherently more comfortable. I think plam's right when he says it depends. He also makes a really good point about wayfinding- even if it's not significantly easier, maybe people will perceive it to be so (maybe the same with comfort).

I'm personally really interested to find out how much faster Ion will be than the 200. Without implying that I don't think we need Ion (the buses are destined to get slower, so we do), it's hard to see how it will be a significantly quicker trip, especially if you're going all the way to Conestoga Mall, and have taken a rather indirect way of getting there. But I'm hoping that Ion will achieve speeds higher than I expect on the Spur Line, and the trip is much faster than currently.


RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 12-21-2015

I'm very confident of better speeds. The Fairway - Mill section is also an off-road bit (it runs next to Courtland, not in the middle), and the on-road stuff should be no slower than a bus. All in all, a faster trip.