Grand River Transit

[danbrotherston]

Many people reject funding free services that they don't think they will ever use or benefit from. To a significant number of those people, subsidizing those services is more palatable.

In that context it's easy to see some sort of fee (even if just nominal) as a form of protection against future defunding.

Again, this doesn't happen for most of the services which are free. Canada doesn't have ANY anti-library opposition at this point (I know the US does, but they're just generally against knowing anything), and it's free, and not used by most people.

Again, I don't think opposition is about funding.

[plam]

Two things.

1. Fare revenue is actually revenue and can be used to improve service. I'd rather have better service that costs something than worse service that doesn't cost anything. On the other hand, the UPass model is sort of more like funding transit with taxes, though ring-fenced.

2. I agree with dtkvictim's point. Psychologically we do value things that cost money. If you want your product to be more valued by people, one way is to increase the price.

(And, as for one of your examples, snow removal, well, we can talk about sidewalk snow removal again? ...)

[KevinL]

I think fare-free transit should always be considered as an option, and there are cases (like Orangeville) where it's definitely the right choice; similarly there are many where it is not, due to poor support from government and/or budgetary concerns. But it's always good to consider and cost out.

[tomh009]

A significantly lower price point ($2?) might be the thing to do to address affordability and improve ridership, without going all the way to zero. On the other hand, then you still have the costs associated with fare collection and enforcement.

[MidTowner]

A significantly lower price point ($2?) might be the thing to do to address affordability and improve ridership, without going all the way to zero. On the other hand, then you still have the costs associated with fare collection and enforcement.

A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.

For instance, GRT levies the full adult fare for children, which is very rare in Ontario (I've looked around a bit, and in fact can't find another large transit system nearby that does it), and are resistant to changing that for reasons that are unclear to me. They seem to have a lot of antipathy to the idea of senior discounts, even on particular days, when that conversation has come up.

[danbrotherston]

A significantly lower price point ($2?) might be the thing to do to address affordability and improve ridership, without going all the way to zero. On the other hand, then you still have the costs associated with fare collection and enforcement.

A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.

For instance, GRT levies the full adult fare for children, which is very rare in Ontario (I've looked around a bit, and in fact can't find another large transit system nearby that does it), and are resistant to changing that for reasons that are unclear to me. They seem to have a lot of antipathy to the idea of senior discounts, even on particular days, when that conversation has come up.

I forgot they charged for kids over 4.

Fucking GRT...welp I guess this winter is the last time we'll be riding it 12 bucks per trip is a tough pill to swallow when I'm busy choking down Via Rail's bullshit. *sigh*...Good job Canada, you beat me, I'll rent a fucking car next time I come back.

[Rainrider22]

A significantly lower price point ($2?) might be the thing to do to address affordability and improve ridership, without going all the way to zero. On the other hand, then you still have the costs associated with fare collection and enforcement.

A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.

For instance, GRT levies the full adult fare for children, which is very rare in Ontario (I've looked around a bit, and in fact can't find another large transit system nearby that does it), and are resistant to changing that for reasons that are unclear to me. They seem to have a lot of antipathy to the idea of senior discounts, even on particular days, when that conversation has come up.

Further, my 15 year old daughter cant even get a student rate !!! Yet, the university and college students get a discounted price.

[danbrotherston]

A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.

For instance, GRT levies the full adult fare for children, which is very rare in Ontario (I've looked around a bit, and in fact can't find another large transit system nearby that does it), and are resistant to changing that for reasons that are unclear to me. They seem to have a lot of antipathy to the idea of senior discounts, even on particular days, when that conversation has come up.

Further, my 15 year old daughter cant even get a student rate !!! Yet, the university and college students get a discounted price.

University and college students don't get a discount from anyone but their fellow students. Honestly we've discussed this before, everyone in this forum should already know how UPass works, it's cross subsidized by other students at the school, not by the city, all enrolled students have to buy it regardless of whether they take the bus.

If your daughter can convince her entire school to buy tickets that are shared by all the students at her school, she too can get her fellow students to subsidize her pass.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a student discount (in fact, I fairly clearly think GRT is overpriced in general) but this comparison is unreasonable.

[taylortbb]

A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.

I'm not convinced it would increase ridership significantly. We had a 10 day long experiment in this when ION launched, and all GRT services were free to celebrate. The ION was packed with people trying it out because it was brand new, but the free buses didn't really change ridership. In Waterloo Region GRT is largely competing against private automobiles, which are already far more expensive than GRT. People pay the premium for the convenience, not because it's better value than transit.

For instance, GRT levies the full adult fare for children, which is very rare in Ontario (I've looked around a bit, and in fact can't find another large transit system nearby that does it), and are resistant to changing that for reasons that are unclear to me. They seem to have a lot of antipathy to the idea of senior discounts, even on particular days, when that conversation has come up.

The reasons relate to use of fare discount budget. GRT used to do what other systems did, with discount for children/teens and seniors, and a very limited number of low income passes available (with a multi-year waiting list to get one). The fare discount "budget" was basically the amount of forgone revenue that GRT was accepting to offer those discounts, and an analysis of it showed that the vast majority was going to high school students from middle/upper class families, who had their parents paying for their GRT usage. Is using our limited fare discount budget to subsidize middle/upper class students, while those most in need face a multi-year waiting list, really the best use of a finite fare discount budget? GRT didn't think so, so they changed to a 50% across-the-board discount for low income riders (including children/teens from low income families), with no waiting period. It was a revenue-neutral change, keeping the fare discount budget flat.

I understand that people are annoyed by the lack of discounts for children/teens from higher income families, but I don't see how you can justify making those with low incomes wait years for an affordable transit pass to keep it going. It was a pretty clear re-targeting of limited funds to the area of greatest need.

I'd support increasing the fare discount budget, but the right way to do it would be to increase the income cut-offs for the discount program, not bring back across-the-board teen discounts. Offering discount by household income really seems to me like the fairest way to do it.

[Rainrider22]

I disagree. Household income shouldn't dictate. Many people lie about their actual income. People shouldn't be penalized because they pay their fare share of taxes in an honest way. Give students a discount and encourage them to make a cultural shift towards utilizing public transit.

[MidTowner]

A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.

I'm not convinced it would increase ridership significantly. We had a 10 day long experiment in this when ION launched, and all GRT services were free to celebrate. The ION was packed with people trying it out because it was brand new, but the free buses didn't really change ridership. In Waterloo Region GRT is largely competing against private automobiles, which are already far more expensive than GRT. People pay the premium for the convenience, not because it's better value than transit.

For instance, GRT levies the full adult fare for children, which is very rare in Ontario (I've looked around a bit, and in fact can't find another large transit system nearby that does it), and are resistant to changing that for reasons that are unclear to me. They seem to have a lot of antipathy to the idea of senior discounts, even on particular days, when that conversation has come up.

The reasons relate to use of fare discount budget. GRT used to do what other systems did, with discount for children/teens and seniors, and a very limited number of low income passes available (with a multi-year waiting list to get one). The fare discount "budget" was basically the amount of forgone revenue that GRT was accepting to offer those discounts, and an analysis of it showed that the vast majority was going to high school students from middle/upper class families, who had their parents paying for their GRT usage. Is using our limited fare discount budget to subsidize middle/upper class students, while those most in need face a multi-year waiting list, really the best use of a finite fare discount budget? GRT didn't think so, so they changed to a 50% across-the-board discount for low income riders (including children/teens from low income families), with no waiting period. It was a revenue-neutral change, keeping the fare discount budget flat.

I understand that people are annoyed by the lack of discounts for children/teens from higher income families, but I don't see how you can justify making those with low incomes wait years for an affordable transit pass to keep it going. It was a pretty clear re-targeting of limited funds to the area of greatest need.

I'd support increasing the fare discount budget, but the right way to do it would be to increase the income cut-offs for the discount program, not bring back across-the-board teen discounts. Offering discount by household income really seems to me like the fairest way to do it.

They claim that, but it's a false choice that GRT and the Region created. Other transit systems nearby have fare support for low-income individuals- Guelph does, Hamilton does- while offering free transit for children 12 and under, and discounts for students and seniors. They happen to have lower regular fares as well.

On your point about the 10-day period of free transit when Ion launched, I don't think that's much evidence. Ten days isn't long enough to form habits or really gauge impacts, and the last ten days of June are probably a representative period of transit use. A proper pilot would be the way to test these assumptions one way or another. In 2022, Guelph undertook a pilot offering free transit to children 12 and under. It lasted a year and, based on the results, they made the change permanent.

[danbrotherston]

A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.

I'm not convinced it would increase ridership significantly. We had a 10 day long experiment in this when ION launched, and all GRT services were free to celebrate. The ION was packed with people trying it out because it was brand new, but the free buses didn't really change ridership. In Waterloo Region GRT is largely competing against private automobiles, which are already far more expensive than GRT. People pay the premium for the convenience, not because it's better value than transit.

For instance, GRT levies the full adult fare for children, which is very rare in Ontario (I've looked around a bit, and in fact can't find another large transit system nearby that does it), and are resistant to changing that for reasons that are unclear to me. They seem to have a lot of antipathy to the idea of senior discounts, even on particular days, when that conversation has come up.

The reasons relate to use of fare discount budget. GRT used to do what other systems did, with discount for children/teens and seniors, and a very limited number of low income passes available (with a multi-year waiting list to get one). The fare discount "budget" was basically the amount of forgone revenue that GRT was accepting to offer those discounts, and an analysis of it showed that the vast majority was going to high school students from middle/upper class families, who had their parents paying for their GRT usage. Is using our limited fare discount budget to subsidize middle/upper class students, while those most in need face a multi-year waiting list, really the best use of a finite fare discount budget? GRT didn't think so, so they changed to a 50% across-the-board discount for low income riders (including children/teens from low income families), with no waiting period. It was a revenue-neutral change, keeping the fare discount budget flat.

I understand that people are annoyed by the lack of discounts for children/teens from higher income families, but I don't see how you can justify making those with low incomes wait years for an affordable transit pass to keep it going. It was a pretty clear re-targeting of limited funds to the area of greatest need.

I'd support increasing the fare discount budget, but the right way to do it would be to increase the income cut-offs for the discount program, not bring back across-the-board teen discounts. Offering discount by household income really seems to me like the fairest way to do it.

Subsidizing low income households is a very specific subsidy for a very specific reason. It also plays into the unfortunately prevalent idea that transit is for "the poors".

Subsidizing students specifically has other reasons (it's easier to get riders earlier when they are not yet owning and maintaining a car for example) and is an example of forward thinking.

Subsidizing children is about making it accessible to families (I would not even come close to qualifying for subsidized housing, but it would be cheaper for me to take a taxi for many destinations than for me to go on GRT with even my single child family).

Framing it as "wealthy teens getting cheap rides" is a value framing. I would argue that getting young people on transit--including wealthy ones--is valuable is equally valid framing.



MidTowner already addressed the first point about 10 days being two short, but I also disagree that GRT is competing with "owning and operating a very expensive car". For most people owning a car is a mandatory sunk cost. And hence they perceive driving it to be very nearly free. People in general underestimate the cost of driving, but especially the incremental marginal cost of a single trip, I suspect the vast majority of drivers in the city would believe that driving their car for a single trip costs less than 3.75. The crazy thing, many are probably right about that. A cheap, efficient car on a short-ish trip (e.g., downtown to uptown) probably does cost less even accounting for all costs (depreciation, insurance, gas).

So no, GRT isn't really cost competitive.

Of course, fortunately we don't have the same weird culture I see in the Netherlands where there are people who insistently argue that buying, insuring, and operating a car is cheaper than buying an NS pass. And yeah, NS isn't cheap, but cars are even more expensive by any rational measure.

[ijmorlan]

Framing it as "wealthy teens getting cheap rides" is a value framing. I would argue that getting young people on transit--including wealthy ones--is valuable is equally valid framing.

I really dislike that “wealthy people getting stuff” framing as well, and not just for transit.

I’ve seen people complaining about OAS going to wealthier seniors. Well, either wealthy people get it, or there has to be a range of incomes with excessively high marginal tax rates to phase it out. If people think the wealthy aren’t paying enough, raise the income tax rate on the top tax bracket.

[bravado]

All this soul-searching and strife while drivers pay $0 for any trip outside of the 407 and the financing for maintaining all of it is never in question

[tomh009]

Fucking GRT...welp I guess this winter is the last time we'll be riding it 12 bucks per trip is a tough pill to swallow when I'm busy choking down Via Rail's bullshit. *sigh*...Good job Canada, you beat me, I'll rent a fucking car next time I come back.

It's not the GRT deciding, it's the regional council.