Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 4.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grand River Transit
Another interesting fact from the report: high school, college and university students, riders with corporate passes and members of the beta program form 53% of the ridership of GRT.
Reply


(02-15-2019, 08:11 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(02-15-2019, 06:49 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Still progressing toward a target recovery rate?

"As reported in the February 6, 2019 Public Transit budget information paper, GRT customer price elasticity is generally such that a 1% change in price results in a 0.3% change in ridership. In an environment of service improvements, this decrease would be experienced simply as a minor reduction to the overall rate of ridership increase. Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%. "

So they're willing to sacrifice 1% of ridership....in a year of ridership growth...and low gas prices, low tax hikes, and flat parking fees, 

*sigh*...idiocy..."Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%."  I wonder if staff realize that people, unlike, umm...I dunno, staff logic, does not reset yearly...a 3% hike 3 years in a row is a 9% fare hike, double the amount that risks "increased elasticity"...

This is something that's always been stuck in my head, but I've never run the numbers to see.  If cutting fares increased ridership, would it not make sense to do so?  Like if you cut $1million from fare rates, but the increased ridership generated $1million, wouldn't that be a win?  

I guess they figure that there are some people that won't ride it no matter how cheap it is
Reply
(02-19-2019, 09:40 AM)Spokes Wrote:
(02-15-2019, 08:11 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: "As reported in the February 6, 2019 Public Transit budget information paper, GRT customer price elasticity is generally such that a 1% change in price results in a 0.3% change in ridership. In an environment of service improvements, this decrease would be experienced simply as a minor reduction to the overall rate of ridership increase. Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%. "

So they're willing to sacrifice 1% of ridership....in a year of ridership growth...and low gas prices, low tax hikes, and flat parking fees, 

*sigh*...idiocy..."Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%."  I wonder if staff realize that people, unlike, umm...I dunno, staff logic, does not reset yearly...a 3% hike 3 years in a row is a 9% fare hike, double the amount that risks "increased elasticity"...

This is something that's always been stuck in my head, but I've never run the numbers to see.  If cutting fares increased ridership, would it not make sense to do so?  Like if you cut $1million from fare rates, but the increased ridership generated $1million, wouldn't that be a win?  

I guess they figure that there are some people that won't ride it no matter how cheap it is

My understanding of price elasticity is that an elasticity of 0.3 means that if fares were cut by $1M, there would be an increase in ridership that would generate about $300K. As long as elasticity is less than 1, fare increases will increase revenue, and fare cuts will decrease it.
Reply
(02-19-2019, 09:50 AM)jwilliamson Wrote:
(02-19-2019, 09:40 AM)Spokes Wrote: This is something that's always been stuck in my head, but I've never run the numbers to see.  If cutting fares increased ridership, would it not make sense to do so?  Like if you cut $1million from fare rates, but the increased ridership generated $1million, wouldn't that be a win?  

I guess they figure that there are some people that won't ride it no matter how cheap it is

My understanding of price elasticity is that an elasticity of 0.3 means that if fares were cut by $1M, there would be an increase in ridership that would generate about $300K. As long as elasticity is less than 1, fare increases will increase revenue, and fare cuts will decrease it.

This is of course what happens when you are not accounting for all the costs...

Lowering fares generates less fare revenue, but more ridership, that ridership has value above and beyond fare revenue.

Of course, the region has been reliable in ignoring those types of benefits (see the cancellation of hybrid buses)--this is only the most obvious problem with running a government "like a business".
Reply
(02-19-2019, 09:50 AM)jwilliamson Wrote:
(02-19-2019, 09:40 AM)Spokes Wrote: This is something that's always been stuck in my head, but I've never run the numbers to see.  If cutting fares increased ridership, would it not make sense to do so?  Like if you cut $1million from fare rates, but the increased ridership generated $1million, wouldn't that be a win?  

I guess they figure that there are some people that won't ride it no matter how cheap it is

My understanding of price elasticity is that an elasticity of 0.3 means that if fares were cut by $1M, there would be an increase in ridership that would generate about $300K. As long as elasticity is less than 1, fare increases will increase revenue, and fare cuts will decrease it.

Flashbacks to first year economics.

Thanks for the explanation.  Not that I think they'd cut fares though, I don't think fare prices are what's keeping people from using transit on a regular basis.
Reply
I know the haters are going to jump all over me but I do not use transit and will most likely not use it in the future. Yes I own a car and yes it is because of convenience and efficiency that I choose to drive. It is just too easy to get around in this city by car. Taking away parking or raising the price of parking significantly will not encourage me to use transit over driving. It may play a part in which businesses and services that I choose to frequent. I am not a transit hater. I’m all for transit. I used transit during my school and early work years. I just don’t see a lot of people in this Region choosing transit over their car. Those that live a short walk to an LRT stop may choose to do so if their destination is along the line. Also reducing fare prices would most likely increase transit trips for those that do not own a car and already use transit. I’m just trying to show another perspective.
Reply
(02-19-2019, 01:04 PM)creative Wrote: I just don’t see a lot of people in this Region choosing transit over their car. Those that live a short walk to an LRT stop may choose to do so if their destination is along the line. Also reducing fare prices would most likely increase transit trips for those that do not own a car and already use transit. I’m just trying to show another perspective.

I live and work near the LRT, and I walk to work (sidewalks notwithstanding). I will choose LRT (and, to a lesser extent, buses) when I can, and I will (and do now) choose businesses based on whether they can be reached conveniently, without a car.

And that's in spite of the fact that I do own a car. And even a car that I very much like, and enjoy driving. Just yet another perspective. Smile
Reply


While I don't own a car, even if I did I would likely still commute by transit - because I know how stress-free and uncomplicated it is.
Reply
I drive to work because it’s a 15-40 minute drive, or a 90-105 minute commute by GRT.

I’ll provably do once or twice a week by LRT+Bus once it’s up and running because I want to go for a train ride, but I’m in a minority with that way of looking at it.
Reply
(02-19-2019, 01:04 PM)creative Wrote: I know the haters are going to jump all over me but I do not use transit and will most likely not use it in the future. Yes I own a car and yes it is because of convenience and efficiency that I choose to drive. It is just too easy to get around in this city by car. Taking away parking or raising the price of parking significantly will not encourage me to use transit over driving. It may play a part in which businesses and services that I choose to frequent. I am not a transit hater. I’m all for transit. I used transit during my school and early work years. I just don’t see a lot of people in this Region choosing transit over their car. Those that live a short walk to an LRT stop may choose to do so if their destination is along the line. Also reducing fare prices would most likely increase transit trips for those that do not own a car and already use transit. I’m just trying to show another perspective.

So you suggest that raising the prices of parking or driving would only change what businesses you frequent, but what if *all* parking cost you money?  How would that change your behaviour?

I don't think you'll find most here object to having the freedom to drive, but the problem is the current economics are so far slanted towards driving, and yet, we hear continually "increase fare recovery rate on transit" or "cyclists must pay their way"...ignoring the reality of the huge subsidies for driving.

I don't know if a full accounting of the costs and a reduction in the subsidy for driving would make everyone here happy, but I also think you'd find that a whole lot of people would choose to take transit over paying the full cost of driving--that's how economics generally work.

I do agree that lowering fares would not drive substantial ridership from people who's main obstacle to transit use is generally service.
Reply
While there is a correlation between parking prices and transit usage, I'd be hesitant to conclude that increasing the cost of parking would drive up transit usage in KW. Cities where there is high transit usage and high parking rates also are generally far larger and far more centralized than KW. As a general rule that applies for both small and large cities, I think you'll find that both transit usage and parking prices are more a function of land value than transit use is a function of parking prices.
Reply
(02-19-2019, 02:33 PM)jamincan Wrote: While there is a correlation between parking prices and transit usage, I'd be hesitant to conclude that increasing the cost of parking would drive up transit usage in KW. Cities where there is high transit usage and high parking rates also are generally far larger and far more centralized than KW. As a general rule that applies for both small and large cities, I think you'll find that both transit usage and parking prices are more a function of land value than transit use is a function of parking prices.

This is basic economics, making something more expensive (driving), will result in less of that thing. Whether the resulting people get on a bus, or a bike, or shoes, or simply don't make the trip is definitely up for discussion, and that will likely depend on how walkable, bikeable, transit friendly, and optional the trip is.  But making driving more expensive will reduce driving.
Reply
(02-19-2019, 02:33 PM)jamincan Wrote: While there is a correlation between parking prices and transit usage, I'd be hesitant to conclude that increasing the cost of parking would drive up transit usage in KW. Cities where there is high transit usage and high parking rates also are generally far larger and far more centralized than KW. As a general rule that applies for both small and large cities, I think you'll find that both transit usage and parking prices are more a function of land value than transit use is a function of parking prices.

We need to start by eliminating all parking minima. You can make anything free if you just require somebody to supply enough of it. If grocery stores were required to bake 10 loaves of bread per square foot every day they would probably be free. Of course everything else at the grocery store would be more expensive. Actually, given how expensive parking is to construct, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that my “must bake bread” mandate would be cheaper and less destructive than the “must supply parking” mandate currently in place.

My prediction is that in some places, developers would continue to build enough parking for it to be free; e.g., suburban strip malls. In other locations, they would build more stores or housing and less parking, and then charge for the parking. Regardless of what happened, though, it would be an economic calculation based on local conditions, not a broad-based rule laid down by people who cannot possibly know enough to make the right rule.
Reply


(02-19-2019, 02:38 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(02-19-2019, 02:33 PM)jamincan Wrote: While there is a correlation between parking prices and transit usage, I'd be hesitant to conclude that increasing the cost of parking would drive up transit usage in KW. Cities where there is high transit usage and high parking rates also are generally far larger and far more centralized than KW. As a general rule that applies for both small and large cities, I think you'll find that both transit usage and parking prices are more a function of land value than transit use is a function of parking prices.

This is basic economics, making something more expensive (driving), will result in less of that thing. Whether the resulting people get on a bus, or a bike, or shoes, or simply don't make the trip is definitely up for discussion, and that will likely depend on how walkable, bikeable, transit friendly, and optional the trip is.  But making driving more expensive will reduce driving.

Realistically, what do you propose, policy-wise?

Our goal should be to make our community more accessible and less car-dependent. That means good transit. Good active transportation options. Healthy downtowns with thriving businesses that people want to go to. If raising the price of parking downtown decreased car traffic, but drove businesses and people away from downtown, I'd argue it is counterproductive.
Reply
(02-19-2019, 02:42 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(02-19-2019, 02:33 PM)jamincan Wrote: While there is a correlation between parking prices and transit usage, I'd be hesitant to conclude that increasing the cost of parking would drive up transit usage in KW. Cities where there is high transit usage and high parking rates also are generally far larger and far more centralized than KW. As a general rule that applies for both small and large cities, I think you'll find that both transit usage and parking prices are more a function of land value than transit use is a function of parking prices.

We need to start by eliminating all parking minima. You can make anything free if you just require somebody to supply enough of it. If grocery stores were required to bake 10 loaves of bread per square foot every day they would probably be free. Of course everything else at the grocery store would be more expensive. Actually, given how expensive parking is to construct, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that my “must bake bread” mandate would be cheaper and less destructive than the “must supply parking” mandate currently in place.

My prediction is that in some places, developers would continue to build enough parking for it to be free; e.g., suburban strip malls. In other locations, they would build more stores or housing and less parking, and then charge for the parking. Regardless of what happened, though, it would be an economic calculation based on local conditions, not a broad-based rule laid down by people who cannot possibly know enough to make the right rule.

Or simply reducing parking minima for residential construction. I don't think it's desirable to have residential construction rely on on-street parking for its residents.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 12 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links