Grand River Transit

[timio]

The only bad part about transfers being built into the card is the lack of being able to score extra time on the transfer based on when the operator updates the sharp edge.

But as an occasional rider, I'm looking forward to not having to trudge over to the store to buy tickets.

[chutten]

FWIW, the printed transfers from the new machines are giving us 99 minute transfers instead of 90. So I guess we get a few extra minutes without the generosity of operators? :)

[danbrotherston]

FWIW, the printed transfers from the new machines are giving us 99 minute transfers instead of 90. So I guess we get a few extra minutes without the generosity of operators?

Or most likely, you get even more generosity, at least with paper transfers with a printed time.

[ijmorlan]

FWIW, the printed transfers from the new machines are giving us 99 minute transfers instead of 90. So I guess we get a few extra minutes without the generosity of operators?

Or most likely, you get even more generosity, at least with paper transfers with a printed time.

I figure they should change the official number from 90 to 120 (2 hours) in order to match up better with actual existing practice. There is no reason to be stingy with the transfer period.

[Canard]

I figure they should change the official number from 90 to 120 (2 hours) in order to match up better with actual existing practice. There is no reason to be stingy with the transfer period.

Of course there is. It opens it up to abuse and it's a loss of revenue.

Is anyone's route between two points actually 2h+Last Trip Time? If yes, then absolutely it needs to be adjusted (and that's absolutely horrible).

[timio]

I figure they should change the official number from 90 to 120 (2 hours) in order to match up better with actual existing practice. There is no reason to be stingy with the transfer period.

Of course there is. It opens it up to abuse and it's a loss of revenue.

This is the current struggle with Toronto as they fade out the "trial" 2-hour transfer on St. Clair instead of expanding it to all routes.  Rather than having a straight forward system, they've decided to leave transfer rules as is, make Presto accommodate their transfer rules (which aren't very straight-forward at times), and not lose the $20 million in revenue per year that having a timed transfer system wide would cost them, despite the heaps of good will it would give them from travellers.

[MidTowner]

As someone who is often the beneficiary of the currently over-generous transfers and operators (last week, I got to get off the bus, attend a 60 minute meeting that was held just off my route, and then get back on the bus to carry on without another fare- that's not what the transfer is "supposed" to allow you to do), I have to agree that the current practice isn't ideal.

You're not meant to be able to conduct round-trips with a transfer. The longest routes in the system aren't more than 90 minutes long. If you took a bus to Ainslie from Conestoga Mall, you'd still be able to use a transfer to get on a Cambridge local to your final destination. Ninety minutes (or perhaps a tiny bit more, given what riders are accustomed to now) should be enough.

[tomh009]

Agreed. In addition to the loss of revenue, it makes ridership numbers look lower as that return trip is not counted as a new passenger.

[ijmorlan]

As someone who is often the beneficiary of the currently over-generous transfers and operators (last week, I got to get off the bus, attend a 60 minute meeting that was held just off my route, and then get back on the bus to carry on without another fare- that's not what the transfer is "supposed" to allow you to do), I have to agree that the current practice isn't ideal.

You're not meant to be able to conduct round-trips with a transfer. The longest routes in the system aren't more than 90 minutes long. If you took a bus to Ainslie from Conestoga Mall, you'd still be able to use a transfer to get on a Cambridge local to your final destination. Ninety minutes (or perhaps a tiny bit more, given what riders are accustomed to now) should be enough.

Says who? One of the advertised benefits of the timed transfer, at least in some place, is precisely that one can do a number of small trips on one fare. Also it’s just sensible — in Toronto you have the ridiculous situation where technically I’m in violation if I pop into the corner store at my transfer point.

My point is that right now the transfer is de facto closer to a 2 hour transfer already, so let’s stick to that number. Or maybe advertise 90 but make it actually be 105. I don’t know exactly. For sure making the new ones 90 is, de facto, a reduction in transfer time. Although arguably 99 is not, if the operators adjust their existing transfers every 15 minutes and stick to the exactly 90 minutes. Except they don’t.

Here’s another idea: stick to the strict 90 or 99 minutes, but ease up on the fare increases for a few years.

[Elmira Guy]

The longest routes in the system aren't more than 90 minutes long. If you took a bus to Ainslie from Conestoga Mall, you'd still be able to use a transfer to get on a Cambridge local to your final destination. Ninety minutes (or perhaps a tiny bit more, given what riders are accustomed to now) should be enough.

What if you were going to Ainslie from Elmira? That would in fact be further than from Conestoga Mall by 20-30 minutes. Should anyone taking such a routing have to pay for two fares on a one-way trip?

[danbrotherston]

Says who? One of the advertised benefits of the timed transfer, at least in some place, is precisely that one can do a number of small trips on one fare. Also it’s just sensible — in Toronto you have the ridiculous situation where technically I’m in violation if I pop into the corner store at my transfer point.

My point is that right now the transfer is de facto closer to a 2 hour transfer already, so let’s stick to that number. Or maybe advertise 90 but make it actually be 105. I don’t know exactly. For sure making the new ones 90 is, de facto, a reduction in transfer time. Although arguably 99 is not, if the operators adjust their existing transfers every 15 minutes and stick to the exactly 90 minutes. Except they don’t.

Here’s another idea: stick to the strict 90 or 99 minutes, but ease up on the fare increases for a few years.

This is exactly my impression, and in fact, usually the way I use transfers.  The way I see it, is you bought 90 (or 120 minutes) of access onto the transit system, similar to booking a car share or car rental.  

Toronto's transfer situation is ridiculous.  I don't know why the TTC has made things so difficult for people.

I was surprised that there are routes where you would need two fares to take.  But man, that 200 route takes a long time end to end.

[MidTowner]

I stand corrected, Elmira Guy! I forgot about the services to the townships (sorry), so it's true that it does take longer than 90 minutes to get across the system.

Toronto's transfer system is too much, but it doesn't seem to me that the way I currently use transfers makes a lot of sense, either. Should I really be able to go do an errand, and come home on the same fare?

It's what everyone is used to, though, so I agree that there's no reason to impose a 90-minute hard deadline. The situation right now is too generous, though: I've had drivers rip me transfers of over two hours.

[Canard]

Says who? One of the advertised benefits of the timed transfer, at least in some place, is precisely that one can do a number of small trips on one fare. Also it’s just sensible — in Toronto you have the ridiculous situation where technically I’m in violation if I pop into the corner store at my transfer point.

A transfer is just that - a transfer.

Using it to stop and doddle and do all your errands and get a free ride home is unethical and totally against the concept of the system.

[KevinL]

Only if you let its name inform its purpose. If you look at it as a 'ticket for unfettered travel, 90 minute limit' then it works fine. We only still call it a 'transfer' because we always have.

Note: when these start getting printed at LRT platforms, the name 'transfer' will be less accurate and 'ticket' will, I think, become the norm.

[MidTowner]

Although I agree that a transfer exists in order to facilitate a connection, let's be reasonable. What you call a "doddle" might be someone spending money at a business, or attending a meeting, or paying a quick visit to someone.

There are other conceptions of what a transfer is that are valid, too, even if I don't generally agree with them. It's not "unethical" to use a transfer with time left on it that you received for paying a fare.