Grand River Transit

[tomh009]

The article does not say that child fares would be eliminated, so I wouldn't jump to that conclusion quite yet.

As for seniors, if the argument is off-peak usage -- what benefit do we, as a society, get from (well-off) seniors using transit at off-peak times? They then don't drive, that's true, but at off-peak times the congestion impact isn't significant in any case.

And would a $2.86 fare (as opposed to the current $2.49) really discourage a well-off senior from taking transit?

[MidTowner]

There is no child fare. There is only an adult fare and a reduced fare. Maybe there will continue to be a reduced fare for children under a certain age, but that wasn't specified.

I don't think the argument really is off-peak usage* for seniors. I personally don't really comprehend all of the discounts seniors get on various goods and services. But I would imagine that seniors are a specific segment worth pursuing (maybe with discounts) since they tend to travel off-peak. The benefit we get is revenue on the one hand, and them not driving on the other- congestion is only one negative impact of more cars on the road.

I think it's obvious that someone will use something less if it costs 15% more. I don't know how elastic demand for transit is among seniors.

*The transit affordability study we're talking about also included possibilities about reduced fares during off-peak periods. An off-peak pass was offered (at $23) during the affordability study that ended this year. It's a real possibility.

[ijmorlan]

There is no child fare. There is only an adult fare and a reduced fare. Maybe there will continue to be a reduced fare for children under a certain age, but that wasn't specified.

I don't think the argument really is off-peak usage* for seniors. I personally don't really comprehend all of the discounts seniors get on various goods and services. But I would imagine that seniors are a specific segment worth pursuing (maybe with discounts) since they tend to travel off-peak. The benefit we get is revenue on the one hand, and them not driving on the other- congestion is only one negative impact of more cars on the road.

If we want to encourage off-peak ridership, we should simply charge less off-peak, rather than having weird targeted reduced fares for groups of people believed to, on average, want to travel off-peak. In particular, it’s absolutely nutty to allow seniors on for a reduced fare at rush hour. If anything fares should go up at rush hour — this is basic economics.

And more generally, yes, the seniors’ discounts are weird. What is the rational basis for this age discrimination? If it has to do with old poor people, there are poor people of every age.

On a related note, I like the idea of sending my kids on the bus to their school. There are 3 of them, and they could get on at a stop a couple of blocks from our house, ride for 10 minutes, and get off at the traffic light right in front of their school. Unfortunately, 3 monthly passes would cost $225 per month. The loan payment on my very nice hybrid electric is only $650. Of course there is also maintenance, etc. but given all the other uses to which the car is put that are not easily replaced by transit, we’ll be driving them for the foreseeable future.

[MidTowner]

I agree with you about reduced fares at off-peak. A lot of systems do this, and it's a good idea.

On the topic of seniors' discounts generally, it may well be a holdover from periods in which senior poverty was a problem. They're no longer more likely to be impoverished than other age groups (at least in Canada).

One really important point in favour of reduced fares for children, I think, is that exposing children to transit has to make it more likely that they'll use transit in the future.

[MidTowner]

The article does not say that child fares would be eliminated, so I wouldn't jump to that conclusion quite yet.

I'm circling back on this because I did get confirmation from the Region that the subsidized/reduced fare would be eliminated. Starting at five years old, children would be charged the full adult fare of $2.86.

Just for context, that would mean the children and student's fare would be about 27% higher than in Guelph, and 40% higher than in Hamilton.

[KevinT]

Just for context, that would mean the children and student's fare would be about 27% higher than in Guelph, and 40% higher than in Hamilton.

Devil's Advocate: Would you like us to step back to their level of service so that we can equalize the fare?

[MidTowner]

Just for context, that would mean the children and student's fare would be about 27% higher than in Guelph, and 40% higher than in Hamilton.

Devil's Advocate:  Would you like us to step back to their level of service so that we can equalize the fare?

The short answer is 'No.' Though I lived in Hamilton and found their level of service 'Pretty good.' I grew up in London and found the LTC 'Pretty good,' too. But it's not a fair question.

I cite those because the Region and GRT identifies those as our peer cities. I would happily cite Toronto, where a parent can take an eleven-year-old child on a bus without paying an extra fare, and the adult fare is only 8% higher than ours, and the cash fare the same.

That's not really a fair comparison- paying 8% more wouldn't mean we could have TTC coverage and frequency. Rejecting a 15% cut to senior and children fares doesn't mean service would have to suffer.

[Bob_McBob]

Why do the region and individual municipalities use a LICO inconsistent with Statistics Canada data for the Kichener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA? As of 2017, the City of Waterloo claimed the before-tax LICO for the region was $21,822, which is mostly consistent with the after-tax cut-off of $18,436 the region will be using for reduced income GRT fares. But that's the LICO for an area with a population under 500,000, and our CMA has been over that since at least the 2016 census. The cut-off should be at least $21,000 after tax now.

https://www.waterloo.ca/en/things-to-do/...cation.pdf

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/...5B0%5D=2.1

[MidTowner]

You can select 'before tax' on the Stats Can page you linked to, and see that the City of Waterloo is using the low-income cut-off (before tax) for a CMA of 100,000 to 500,000.

When were 2016 census numbers available? You're right that that's when we surpassed 500,000- maybe when the City last set rates for that recreation fee discount program, the 2016 population figures weren't yet available.

Edit: Where would GRT's $18,4xx come from, then? That doesn't align with any of Stat Can's cut-offs, unless maybe 2018 is available somewhere.

[jamincan]

The Kitchener CMA has actually been above 500,000 since 2009 when the population was estimated to be 501,631. 

(Statistics Canada's explanation as to why population estimates are more representative of the population at a given time than the actual census count)

[MidTowner]

Well, there you go. It must be a case of the bureaucrats not knowing what a CMA is and thinking that their own municipality has far less than 500,000. Though the Region should know how many inhabitants it has.

[taylortbb]

Well, there you go. It must be a case of the bureaucrats not knowing what a CMA is and thinking that their own municipality has far less than 500,000. Though the Region should know how many inhabitants it has.

Especially given the region produces its own population estimates, which as of this year is over 600,000.

[Bob_McBob]

I figured it out. They're using the Market Basket Measure thresholds for a population between 100,000 and 499,999 in Ontario because Statistics Canada doesn't provide anything more specific. I was also shocked to discover there are 43,000 local residents with incomes under this level, but fewer than 1400 people have access to the existing low-income transit pass program, which is notorious for approval waits running into years.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recen..._5-eng.cfm

[timc]

I didn't see this mentioned before, but it looks like full bus wrap ads are going to continue on GRT buses. Council approved a new ten year contract this week.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/960...o-council/

While Strickland said he understood the perspective of his colleagues, he said the $425,000 that comes each year from bus ads that wrap around the vehicle is not an insignificant amount. He pointed to the new low-income transit program council approved Wednesday night that will make subsidized transit available to more people but also cost the region an additional $681,000 annually.

Five buses out of the fleet of 273 can be fully wrapped at any time, while an unlimited number can have murals. Ads will not placed on buses with dark tinted windows.

[danbrotherston]

I didn't see this mentioned before, but it looks like full bus wrap ads are going to continue on GRT buses. Council approved a new ten year contract this week.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/960...o-council/

While Strickland said he understood the perspective of his colleagues, he said the $425,000 that comes each year from bus ads that wrap around the vehicle is not an insignificant amount. He pointed to the new low-income transit program council approved Wednesday night that will make subsidized transit available to more people but also cost the region an additional $681,000 annually.

Five buses out of the fleet of 273 can be fully wrapped at any time, while an unlimited number can have murals. Ads will not placed on buses with dark tinted windows.

One of the worst quotes is Geoff Lorentz claiming he has never heard a person complain about this. The only thing that really proves is that Mr Lorentz never listens to transit riders. Mike Boos has personally delegated on this issue.