(11-27-2015, 04:22 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2015, 03:15 PM)chutten Wrote: [ -> ]This wouldn't be a problem if GRT released their realtime data like they said in August(pdf) they would (still no sign of it).
The Region has found this to be a double-edged sword, as every single delay would be able to be tracked in real time by any interested member of the public and the statistics generated be presented without bias or staff involvement. This potential accountability is giving them pause, in the truest sense.
The easyGo mobile app launched
one year ago. In the consultations of fall 2014, they talked about wanting to withhold access to the real time data from third party developers "for a few months", in order to sort these concerns out.
One year later, still no official access. I don't know about you, but I'm done making excuses for them. They're talking a lot about open data and it's time to walk that talk.
(11-27-2015, 04:22 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2015, 03:15 PM)chutten Wrote: [ -> ]This wouldn't be a problem if GRT released their realtime data like they said in August(pdf) they would (still no sign of it).
The Region has found this to be a double-edged sword, as every single delay would be able to be tracked in real time by any interested member of the public and the statistics generated be presented without bias or staff involvement. This potential accountability is giving them pause, in the truest sense.
They haven't found it to be a double-edged sword. That's a fear in their imagination, and that fear is outweighing the real benefits to the public of easily knowing where their goddamn bus is.
(11-27-2015, 04:52 PM)mpd618 Wrote: [ -> ]They haven't found it to be a double-edged sword. That's a fear in their imagination, and that fear is outweighing the real benefits to the public of easily knowing where their goddamn bus is.
And they've already got their own metrics and the press that shows they're getting out in front of this, like they said they wanted. 3 months ago.
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5812...-the-time/
Google Maps is now using GRT real-time data. If you look up transit directions in Google Maps, it will show whether the bus is on time and if not, how late it is running.
Given that the open data is not officially available, I suppose they must be stripping info from EasyGo much like the Transit app does.
I wouldn't assume that. Google doesn't get their data from publicly available sources, rather transit agencies submit their data to Google (in a format Google defines). It's possible for agencies to submit their data to Google without making it officially public.
Unofficially Google requires it be at a public URL, but absent knowing that URL it's effectively private.
I did a comparison while waiting for my bus on Friday rush hour, when the iXpress is reliably late. The Transit App and Google Maps were displaying the same estimated arrival times, which differed from the time on the official GRT EasyGo app by several minutes. It seems like both external apps had a significant delay in getting updated data.
Region floats free transit for poor from The Record today.
I don't like when it's insinuated that transit is a social service. But I generally think more transit revenue should come from public subsidies than from riders. This would really just be an expansion of existing programs to help people of less economic means access transit; it's probably a good idea on balance.
Interesting idea. I'd imagine the response to the idea will be quite mixed. I don't even want to look at the comments on that Record article though.
We already do this somewhat, both with subsidized passes, and I believe the locations where we've had free meals or a place to sleep would give out a GRT ticket to anyone.
We have plenty of studies which show that the direct cost of doing an obviously good thing (e.g. paying to house all homeless people) is far less, and has far greater results, than the sum of indirect costs and impacts of "saving" that money.
I'd need to know more, but I like the idea a great deal on first glance. Sure, there will be questions. How much revenue would this remove? What would the administration costs be? Would buses become places the homeless would treat as shelters from weather or for sleep? I'm sure that last one is not a reasonable question, but it will be asked, along with many others, that need good answers from the get-go, lest we have the conversation start and stay on a wrong rumour foot.
I see a lot of spend by GRT on fare systems. Why _not_ just make public transit single-payer? We already do that with healthcare to some success. Right now having it be partially subsidized and partially based on fare cards and partially on tickets and partially on cash... it seems inefficient.
Just let the people on the bus and let the people off the bus, and we'll get where we're going faster.
(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.)
I'd rather subsidise free transit than pay staff and consultants an equal amount to study the effects of it, which seems to be the long term trend.
(12-17-2015, 11:12 AM)chutten Wrote: [ -> ]I see a lot of spend by GRT on fare systems. Why _not_ just make public transit single-payer? We already do that with healthcare to some success. Right now having it be partially subsidized and partially based on fare cards and partially on tickets and partially on cash... it seems inefficient.
Just let the people on the bus and let the people off the bus, and we'll get where we're going faster.
(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.)
No one of our size has tried that yet. Talinn, Estonia is close:
http://citiscope.org/story/2014/free-pub...ed-results
They managed to make the cost work out, though, using incentives that we don't have: the claim is that free transit induced more people to register as residents of Talinn. I don't think that's a thing here nearly as much.
Can someone remind me of the farebox recovery rate of the GRT?
In the absence of good empirical data, we're in the land of hypothetical arguments, which always makes me somewhat uncomfortable. There is an issue with respect to things that people don't pay for. Sometimes that's not good, in that people then ascribe zero value to that thing.
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.
(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)