Grand River Transit

[Acitta]

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.

It doesn't matter if people lie about their income. To apply for the Affordable Transit Program one is required to provide proof of income.

Proof of income – 1 of the following, for each income-earning member of your household:

Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment: your most recent Notice of Assessment from the Canada    Revenue Agency that shows your income on line 23600. This is the document that the CRA sent you after they received your tax summary; it verifies your net income.
CRA Proof of income statement (Option C)
Letter from Registered Social Worker

[ac3r]

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 don't think GRT could even cope with it right now. The fares are high because they struggle to retain staff, compounded with the fact the LRT and bus network is just complete garbage meaning ridership just isn't there. You could improve that obviously, but you'd also have to improve something else very important and that would be a lot more buses and trains (and staff to operate them). That is a key necessity especially now that a few billions Indian settlers are here. They have pushed most infrastructure far beyond its breaking point already and transit is one very clear, tangible sign of what the entire nation is now suffering through. Bumping up our bus route or LRT frequencies would barely put a dent in it anymore, but we clearly need it...needed it, even. At this point the LRT and most of the mainline bus routes need 5 minute frequencies through the day, maybe 7 off-peak. It's funny that 10-15 minutes is considered "good", worse, we have some that are 30 minutes even though this place has got to have 700'000 living here. That makes sense in maybe Stratford or Windsor, but not a significantly sized Canadian metropolitan area.

If the Region of Waterloo wants to improve transit to a meaningful degree, they'll need a lot more money than I think the majority of voters are unwilling to deal with right now, which sadly puts it in a rut. Nobody wants to pay more taxes for something they probably won't ever use (even if it is a net benefit for everyone). Making it free sure isn't the answer right now, unless you can immediately improve the service quality at the same time. Sadly, that takes some deep pockets.

[ijmorlan]

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

So very true. Make all 4xx highways exactly like the 407 and watch our government finances clear up along with the congestion. It would be a massive efficiency gain. Would need to beef up GO service as well so that people have an alternative during busy times — but of course it would be way easier to fund with the highway maintenance removed from the main budget.

[plam]

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

So very true. Make all 4xx highways exactly like the 407 and watch our government finances clear up along with the congestion. It would be a massive efficiency gain. Would need to beef up GO service as well so that people have an alternative during busy times — but of course it would be way easier to fund with the highway maintenance removed from the main budget.

I understand that's basically Japan...

[MidTowner]

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.

I don't think that reasons of equity are the best arguments for seniors' and children's fare discounts. I think the argument is to help move a few car trips to transit, to increase ridership (maybe during parts of the day that are not our traditional peaks), and in the case of children to present transit to them as an option that exists from a very young age and so to build ridership in the future.

It doesn't seem to me likely that a lot of particularly wealthy parents will take their eight-year-olds on the bus if there is no fare for him, but maybe. In that case, GRT has earned an adult fare, and removed a car trip. Similarly, if there really are wealthy seniors who will take advantage of the three dollar savings to take a trip on GRT rather than use a private car or a taxi, that's a win from the perspective of traffic, and how could it hurt to demonstrate to a member of that cohort that transit is useful?

[ijmorlan]

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.

I don't think that reasons of equity are the best arguments for seniors' and children's fare discounts. I think the argument is to help move a few car trips to transit, to increase ridership (maybe during parts of the day that are not our traditional peaks), and in the case of children to present transit to them as an option that exists from a very young age and so to build ridership in the future.

It doesn't seem to me likely that a lot of particularly wealthy parents will take their eight-year-olds on the bus if there is no fare for him, but maybe. In that case, GRT has earned an adult fare, and removed a car trip. Similarly, if there really are wealthy seniors who will take advantage of the three dollar savings to take a trip on GRT rather than use a private car or a taxi, that's a win from the perspective of traffic, and how could it hurt to demonstrate to a member of that cohort that transit is useful?

I’m not arguing against reduced fares; I’m arguing against a certain argument against reduced fares (and other accommodations), or for income-testing benefits. Essentially, I’m OK with everybody benefiting from programs such as child fares — I don’t care if the child in question is from a wealthy or a poor family. If the wealthy aren’t paying enough, increase the income tax rates on the higher tax brackets.

That being said, I would rather provide some form of basic income for everybody, and eliminate all the special deals intended to help poor people. Rather than having poor people apply for rent and utility subsidies, just give everybody some money. The current system requires people who need benefits to do a bunch of extra work to get those benefits, and those are precisely the people who don’t really have time to do that extra work.

[danbrotherston]

I don't think that reasons of equity are the best arguments for seniors' and children's fare discounts. I think the argument is to help move a few car trips to transit, to increase ridership (maybe during parts of the day that are not our traditional peaks), and in the case of children to present transit to them as an option that exists from a very young age and so to build ridership in the future.

It doesn't seem to me likely that a lot of particularly wealthy parents will take their eight-year-olds on the bus if there is no fare for him, but maybe. In that case, GRT has earned an adult fare, and removed a car trip. Similarly, if there really are wealthy seniors who will take advantage of the three dollar savings to take a trip on GRT rather than use a private car or a taxi, that's a win from the perspective of traffic, and how could it hurt to demonstrate to a member of that cohort that transit is useful?

I’m not arguing against reduced fares; I’m arguing against a certain argument against reduced fares (and other accommodations), or for income-testing benefits. Essentially, I’m OK with everybody benefiting from programs such as child fares — I don’t care if the child in question is from a wealthy or a poor family. If the wealthy aren’t paying enough, increase the income tax rates on the higher tax brackets.

That being said, I would rather provide some form of basic income for everybody, and eliminate all the special deals intended to help poor people. Rather than having poor people apply for rent and utility subsidies, just give everybody some money. The current system requires people who need benefits to do a bunch of extra work to get those benefits, and those are precisely the people who don’t really have time to do that extra work.

One of the best arguments for this is to get away from the "handouts for the poor" reputation, it's extremely susceptible to being cut or restricted (e.g., you can't take the bus without a drug test) because sociopaths hate when poor people get "something" for free, and that's before you even consider how it also harms poor people, even aside from the having to jump through hoops to apply, it's intentionally self-labelling yourself as "someone in need". This is a big challenge for food banks, some people would rather go hungry than be seen at one, and that's for a pretty basic need like "food". Even better "services for us all" builds social capital in the community, because we see ourselves as contributing to the service.

And just to be clear here, this doesn't actually matter HOW something is funded. I think this is part of why libraries are uncontroversial. They're for everyone, all walks of life can use it. Transit is different, yes, it's open to everyone, but a lot of people have a perception that it's only "for the poors". Which is why IMO the "charging of fares" matters much much less than other elements in establishing value to a community, even in our aggressively neoconservative financialized world.