Grand River Transit

[chutten]

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.)

[kwliving]

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.

[plam]

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.

[MidTowner]

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.

[Canard]

(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)

[chutten]

(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)

Well, those two were the trollish parts of the comment, so feel free to ignore.

[Markster]

Yeah, chutten didn't declare that those were the only two kinds of people. Just the two kinds who are most likely to be arguing on the internet about the issue.

[Memph]

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.

Not here... I think prices would have to be too high to get 100% farebox recovery at this point, and yeah it would cause problems for the lower income users. Farebox recovery for GRT was about 37% in 2010, so we'd be talking about an almost 3-fold increase.

With smaller, lower density cities, the problem is that in order to provide a reasonable level of coverage, you need to run a lot of buses that are largely empty. On some routes the buses will be well used, but others not. The goal would be to increase ridership to the point where the buses are more full, and tripling fares will probably reduce ridership significantly... if tripling fares causes ridership to decrease 10 fold and only allows GRT to cut costs by 50% while adjusting to lower ridership levels for example, farebox recovery isn't improving. Not to mention the various consequences that the region will have to pay for in other ways like more traffic and reduced mobility.

Edit: Just realized I misread your post. 

[Osiris]

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.

Not here... I think prices would have to be too high to get 100% farebox recovery at this point, and yeah it would cause problems for the lower income users. Farebox recovery for GRT was about 37% in 2010, so we'd be talking about an almost 3-fold increase.

I'm fairly certain MidTowner was saying that the fares should be enough to cover what it costs to collect the fares, not run the entire system. A legitimate, albeit tongue-in-cheek insight.

[MidTowner]

I'm fairly certain MidTowner was saying that the fares should be enough to cover what it costs to collect the fares, not run the entire system. A legitimate, albeit tongue-in-cheek insight.

Yes, that's right (and no worries, Memph). It was a tongue-in-cheek observation, but it's not at all unprecedented that a system would see a net savings to stop spending money collecting fares (the one that comes to mind is the Staten Island Ferry).

[tomh009]

I'm fairly certain MidTowner was saying that the fares should be enough to cover what it costs to collect the fares, not run the entire system. A legitimate, albeit tongue-in-cheek insight.

But seriously ... what would be the incremental cost to eliminate fares altogether?  The taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the costs, and eliminating fares would simplify a lot of things -- not to mention substantially increase ridership.  The cost per passenger might not change at all if this were to increase ridership by 50%.

This is a radical option, but is it really so crazy?  (Full disclosure: it has been more than 10 years since I set foot on GRT/Kitchener Transit, although I fully intend to use the LRT once it's ready.)

[MidTowner]

But seriously ... what would be the incremental cost to eliminate fares altogether?  The taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the costs, and eliminating fares would simplify a lot of things -- not to mention substantially increase ridership.  The cost per passenger might not change at all if this were to increase ridership by 50%.

This is a radical option, but is it really so crazy?  (Full disclosure: it has been more than 10 years since I set foot on GRT/Kitchener Transit, although I fully intend to use the LRT once it's ready.)

I bet you're right that costs would not dramatically increase if the system were to become free of fares. We'd save on fare collection infrastructure, and we'd save on time. And we'd serve more passengers, as you note.

Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.

[BuildingScout]

Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.

The LRT experience on rails is radically different to a bus service. This has been repeatedly shown by studies. Also, I think people will use the LRT from Norhtfield/RT Park into Uptown as the lunch time express. There is a dearth of options for eating there and now you and your buddies can jump on the LRT, grab lunch at Nick and Nats or Beertown or Famoso and then head back to work in five minutes.

[tomh009]

Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.

First thing, I am now living downtown, since November, after living first in the suburbs and then in Woolwich.  We still have (two!) cars, but the idea of using the LRT to get groceries or go to the LCBO is definitely appealing.  Maybe the bus would do the same (7?) but with the current construction it's a bit crazy anyway, so we're driving for now, maybe some bicycling once the weather improves in the spring. 

We don't really go to the malls often enough for those routes to be relevant to us, though.

[KevinL]

Yeah, it's the comfort of the ride and the cachet of a train that will have people ride an LRT who would never set foot on a bus.