Grand River Transit

[MidTowner]

That's a good point. There is a tonne of free parking, and rarely if ever any discussion about pricing even token additional bits of it.

[Bytor]

It's not 3% (which is already in excess of the rate of inflation), it's closer to 4% for tickets, and almost 5% for monthly passes. The only types of fares going up 3% or less are concession fares.

When you adjust for the portion of the pie that each fare type is and math it all out, it comes out to an overall 3% rise. That's how GRT has done it in the past.

[danbrotherston]

It's not 3% (which is already in excess of the rate of inflation), it's closer to 4% for tickets, and almost 5% for monthly passes. The only types of fares going up 3% or less are concession fares.

When you adjust for the portion of the pie that each fare type is and math it all out, it comes out to an overall 3% rise. That's how GRT has done it in the past.

The effect however, is that some people see far more than a 3% increase, to be honest, I'm surprised though, I would have figured tickets and passes would make up enough of the fares that they would be almost exactly 3%.

FYI, if fuel costs tracked a 3% increase, given the high of 1.34 in 2012, gas prices would have reached almost 1.70 this summer.  Instead we're paying 1.13.  Just for context.

[plam]

The effect however, is that some people see far more than a 3% increase, to be honest, I'm surprised though, I would have figured tickets and passes would make up enough of the fares that they would be almost exactly 3%.

FYI, if fuel costs tracked a 3% increase, given the high of 1.34 in 2012, gas prices would have reached almost 1.70 this summer.  Instead we're paying 1.13.  Just for context.

I guess I'm usually privileged enough to be able to use tickets and passes rather than cash fares. Especially with EasyGO I don't need to do cash fares.

As we discussed when the debate was BRT vs LRT, operators are a significant part of the cost structure, and I wouldn't be surprised if salaries increased by 3%.

[danbrotherston]

The effect however, is that some people see far more than a 3% increase, to be honest, I'm surprised though, I would have figured tickets and passes would make up enough of the fares that they would be almost exactly 3%.

FYI, if fuel costs tracked a 3% increase, given the high of 1.34 in 2012, gas prices would have reached almost 1.70 this summer.  Instead we're paying 1.13.  Just for context.

I guess I'm usually privileged enough to be able to use tickets and passes rather than cash fares. Especially with EasyGO I don't need to do cash fares.

As we discussed when the debate was BRT vs LRT, operators are a significant part of the cost structure, and I wouldn't be surprised if salaries increased by 3%.

Even with the fare card, the cash outlay to use tickets isn't huge, most people who regularly take transit would probably not use cash, but it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the different fare products.

As for labor costs, I'm sure you're right...in fact, I'm sure costs increased much more than 3% this year.  But our fares should not necessarily be coupled with the cost of providing the service...this is never the case with transportation (almost nobody knows how much parking costs, even the people building it often have no idea of the real cost), and it's only sometimes the case with utilities where we pay fees directly.  Our water utility was under priced for years and years, and only now is coming back to a position of proper funding...to much screaming and crying I'll add.  And we don't know what ridership will do anyway....   Long way of saying, I don't think it should matter what salaries do when it comes to setting fares.

[Bytor]

The fares haven't increased since 2017, IIRC, so this 4% is really for two years worth of inflation, not just one.

[MidTowner]

Fares were not increased in 2018 because ridership was declining amid big service disruptions (and other causes). It doesn't make sense to raise the price of something when demand for it is in decline.

The 2017 fare hikes, by the way, were relatively larger than the ones this week- 4.9% for an adult pass, 3.8% for tickets.

I also don't really think we should be aiming for inflationary increases, necessarily. Nor do I even think we should be aiming to keep up with increases to the system's cost (though, with the stated goal of increasing farebox recovery, I guess it has to be the case). The demand for transit is not inelastic, and with the goal of increasing ridership we should be thinking very carefully before raising fares- especially when costs for competing modes of transportation are not going up.

[tomh009]

Long way of saying, I don't think it should matter what salaries do when it comes to setting fares.

So, what should matter?

[ijmorlan]

Long way of saying, I don't think it should matter what salaries do when it comes to setting fares.

So, what should matter?

Interesting question. In a normal business, it’s a market consideration. But public transit is a government service, so it’s basically a political question. We could go like roads, and make it free to the user; or we could do it like the post office, and expect it to make a profit; or we can be anywhere between. At present we’re in between those extremes.

[tomh009]

GRT looks to scrap senior, student and low-income fares, introduce 48% discount
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener...-1.5273796

I'm very supportive of this, at least in principle. The student and senior fares are only about 15% lower today: students and seniors with significant income can certainly afford the extra $13 per month. On the other hand, this would provide a nearly 50% discount for a huge swathe of lower-income transit users, whether working, student or senior. Yes, free transit for them might be even better. Yes, the need for (some?) financial data to qualify is not ideal. But if we are going to reduce transit costs for a segment of the population, I'm all for means-testing so that those with a real need can get the support.

I can only hope that when I'm 65 I won't qualify for the low-income fare. And I will not begrudge those who do.

[MidTowner]

I thought about this proposal, and I don't think I'm in favour as proposed. But only because I think this program should be paid for by new subsidies from the Region, and not from removing discounts on seniors and children.

It's true that many seniors have significant income, and from an equity standpoint there's not a lot of strong argument for offering them a discount. But it's not just for equity reasons that the discount is there, it's also to incent ridership, and I would argue that they are good riders, likely to travel outside of peak times when our transit assets are underutilized.

It also irked me that the CBC article kept referring to "students" when talking about the discounts. GRT charges fares for children as young as five...they'll now apparently be charging adult fares for children as young as five. That's a big burden for parents to get on transit with their kids, and I bet a Gender-based analysis of that proposal would be interesting.

To put that policy in perspective, Guelph Transit offers a 25% discount for kids and seniors; HSR, 18%; LTC, 19%. LTC doesn't charge fares for children under the age of 12 (nor does TTC).

Looking outside of our peer group at great transit cities, London England you ride for free until 16 and then get a 50% discount for a couple of years afterwards. In Montreal, you ride for free until six and then get a ~30% discount.

[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.